Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Axe Begins to Fall on Army Officer Challenging Obama’s Eligibility to Serve as President
Bob McCarty Writes ^ | 4-13-10 | Bob McCarty

Posted on 04/13/2010 10:00:19 AM PDT by BobMcCartyWrites

The axe appears to be falling on an Army officer who is refusing to deploy to Afghanistan until Barack Obama proves he is eligible to serve as president.


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Military/Veterans; Politics
KEYWORDS: army; barackobama; birthcertificate; birthers; blogpimp; certifigate; citizenship; courtmartial; eligibility; lakin; naturalborncitizen; obama; obamaisabirther; runonsentences; terrylakin; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-106 next last
To: Puppage

> “Regardless of the reason behind his actions, refusing an order has it’s punishments.” <

Do you think WE should find LtCol Lakin “Guilty of the Charges and Specifications” BEFORE a panel of his peers (other Commissioned Officers) has an opportunity to hear the evidence against him?

Shall WE just let the “axe fall” and “punish” him EVEN BEFORE the Article 32 Investigation (military equivalent of a grand jury) determines and present evidence that an offense has actually occurred?

Just asking?


61 posted on 04/13/2010 1:45:38 PM PDT by Joe Marine 76 (Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

Wow, thanks for mentioning Bily Mitchell. What a man he was. I just got done reading Doolittle’s biography, and Mitchell was never appreciated. He is the kind of zealot that I like.


62 posted on 04/13/2010 2:22:54 PM PDT by 999replies (Thune/Rubio 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

And his name was Terrence Lakin


63 posted on 04/13/2010 2:27:15 PM PDT by 999replies (Thune/Rubio 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13

I read up on the Article 138 process. I fail to see how this can force the State of HI to disclose the long form birth record.


64 posted on 04/13/2010 3:28:29 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

I think that he received a less than honorable discharge.


65 posted on 04/13/2010 3:30:37 PM PDT by Always Independent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

So if Vladimir Putin became the CIC everything he did would be considered a “valid order”?

If so, then how the heck is any officer actually supposed to KEEP the oath to protect the Constitution from enemies both foreign and internal? Seems like the only mechanism for an officer to do that is to fall on the sword, because actually DOING what he/she swears would be in violation of the “de facto officer” doctrine.

I’m asking a serious question: How do the “de facto officer doctrine” and any other military provisions actually provide for an officer to keep his/her oath when someone above him/her in the chain of command is a (supposedly) internal enemy to the Constitution?

What provision is made for that? How could he/she carry out their oath WITHOUT violating a “de facto” order?


66 posted on 04/13/2010 3:37:25 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith

I sure hope you’re right. These days it’s anybody’s guess whether what’s SUPPOSED to be will ever actually happen. We’re in a time of utter lawlessness.


67 posted on 04/13/2010 3:39:18 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Always Independent

BCD = Bad Conduct Discharge = less than honorable discharge


68 posted on 04/13/2010 3:39:28 PM PDT by JoSixChip (It's time to embrace the madness! The sooner we default the sooner we can reorganize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

My purpose for expanding on the Article 138 is to illustrate that he is working within the UCMJ, and not trying to work outside the chain of command. Also, it appears that he is being thoughtful, and thurough about the methodology. This is not an ignorant man.


69 posted on 04/13/2010 5:47:22 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

Jamesee is a clown.


70 posted on 04/13/2010 5:50:14 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

So if Vladimir Putin became the CIC everything he did would be considered a “valid order”?

If so, then how the heck is any officer actually supposed to KEEP the oath to protect the Constitution from enemies both foreign and internal? Seems like the only mechanism for an officer to do that is to fall on the sword, because actually DOING what he/she swears would be in violation of the “de facto officer” doctrine.

I’m asking a serious question: How do the “de facto officer doctrine” and any other military provisions actually provide for an officer to keep his/her oath when someone above him/her in the chain of command is a (supposedly) internal enemy to the Constitution?

What provision is made for that? How could he/she carry out their oath WITHOUT violating a “de facto” order?


It is the job of Congress to remove an ineligible president via impeachment, trial and conviction. Once a president’s electoral votes are certified and he is sworn in, he IS the president, no matter what.

There is nowhere in the US Constitution that the Judicial Branch is given the power to remove a sitting president.

If Vladimir Putin got a majority of the electoral college votes, he still could be stopped at the Joint Session of Congress by any two Congressman submitting written objections to the certification of his Electoral Votes by the President of the Senate (the outgoing Vice President).
He could also be stopped by nobody being willing to swear him in.


71 posted on 04/13/2010 6:44:04 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT; All

“Imagine what we would say if liberal soldiers had refused to deploy to Iraq until Bush had his election verified in a court of law.”

A VERY flawed analogy. First of all, we weren’t at war when the first G.W. Bush election occured. PLUS, and MORE importantly, was that the SCOTUS intervened and MADE the count legal...by ending recounts.

The SCOTUS ACTED!!!! Something they have FAILED to do in this situation. Just the sound of criketts. They need to be FORCED to make a ruling...whether I or others agree or disagree...they need to make a ruling on Barrack Obama’s NBC status. Can he be a NBC with a non-citizen father? et. al.

This IS NOT too much to ask. THAT is the crux of the issue. IS BHO constitutionally qualified to be POTUS? Silence doesn’t make it so.


72 posted on 04/13/2010 6:48:53 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: jamese777; butterdezillion

Military officers swear allegiance to the Constitution; not the President.


73 posted on 04/13/2010 7:12:17 PM PDT by Cyropaedia ("Virtue cannot separate itself from reality without becoming a principal of evil...".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas

The court ended the counting. They didn’t rule on whether Bush had won or lost.

My point wasn’t that specific incidence, it was that anybody can claim that the President doesn’t meet the qualifications, and we can’t have troops who get to sit on the sidelines until they get a court hearing to rule on their claims.

The presumption is that Obama is president, and until someone proves otherwise, people will have to obey lawful orders of their superiors. 50 states certified Obama to be on the ballot. The electors voted for Obama, certifying he was the winner. The congress ratified the results. The judicial representative swore him in.

We can argue over whether he is qualified, but the notion that everybody should act like he ISN”T president until courts rule on the challenges is backwards.


74 posted on 04/13/2010 7:12:18 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

“But can they punish somebody for refusing a lawful order without first proving that it’s lawful - or allowing the person the means to prove that it’s NOT a lawful order?”

Very good question.


75 posted on 04/13/2010 7:42:33 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (Show me one example where the results of Democrat policy are not the opposite of what they promise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas
A VERY flawed analogy. First of all, we weren’t at war when the first G.W. Bush election occured.

A position only held by liberal wannabe oligarchs, many of whom are on this board. A position which which they will refuse to attempt to hold up in debate.

The constitution restricts the power to initiate war to the Senate. It also strictly requires that body to ratify any document formally ending a war.

In 1990, a foreign power declared war on the US and we as a nation became embroiled in Iraq. The constitution does not address whether or not we are at war when another power declares war on us, as the founding fathers never imagined idiots like the 1990 congress, or the braindead idiots (some of whom are here at Free Republic) would ever pretend that we are not legitimately at war.

Bottom line, we have been at war since 1990, as the Senate has never ratified a treaty ending the war Iraq declared on the USA at that time.

I am willing to debate any brain dead idiot that wishes to give it a shot.

76 posted on 04/13/2010 7:51:58 PM PDT by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
I suspect the fix is in. Obama will let it be known through back channels that it will not be tolerated for a military judge to allow this soldier to request any evidence that questions the One’s right to be President.

Talk about undue command influence and illegal orders!

The judge and prosecutors, maybe even the convening authority, would likely blow the whistle on him faster than he could believe.

77 posted on 04/13/2010 9:46:31 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip
A military court martial is very, very similar to a civilian trial. Been there done that.

Except in a civilian trial, the jury is passive. A Court Martial, that is the panel of officers (and optionally enlisted for an enlisted defendant) is an active part of the trial. They get to ask questions all along the way, of each witness, if they choose.

78 posted on 04/13/2010 9:52:20 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: voveo
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I 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 that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

That's the enlisted oath. The officer's oath is:

I,_____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I 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; 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.

You'll notice there is nothing in there about obeying orders, except as implied by faithfully discharging the duties of the office. The oath has been the same since 1868, although the enlisted oath was last changed in 1962, to add the "support and defend" language and to better align it with the officer's oath.

The officer's oath is the same as that taken by the Vice President and other federal officials.

79 posted on 04/13/2010 10:03:59 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
If Lakin is denied the chance to defend himself in court-martial does he have the right to file a civil suit because he was denied due process?

He has the right to appeal , similar to that in the civilian courts. The rules require that he be given the opportunity to present his defense, so that in and of itself would be grounds for appeal. If he is dismissed, the first appeal is automatic, to an appeals court within the Army judicial system. Lose that and he can appeal to the US Court of Military Appeals, which is the "court of appeals" for cases arising in the military, the same as the "Circuit Courts of Appeal", and from there to the Supreme Court.

Fortunately the military system often moves somewhat faster than the federal civilian one.

80 posted on 04/13/2010 10:12:29 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-106 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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