Posted on 04/07/2010 10:49:55 PM PDT by neverdem
Well thought out and written post. Thank you!
Don’t you dare go there for as long as you defend an illegal president, you abandon our soldiers, you abandon our constituion and you abandon our nation. That is treason. The only faux patriot is YOU.
Why do we need to draw a line?? The main difference I see is that Watada challenged on a combination of issues, not just the Constitutionality of the war. By contrast, Obama's Constitutional eligiblity as commander-in-chief is based on a very basic premise that could resolved quickly and completely through full disclosure.
So are you saying every person in Iraq and Iran are breaking their oath by being there?
If Obama is the fraud he appears to be, then, yes, absolutely.
Sorry you are so misguided as to abandon our troops. Shame on you.
exactly when he has to think he’s lost.
No ace you are the dumbass and yes you are a troll!
Yeah for sure.
Shame on you for abandoning our country and our constitution. Shame on Obama. Shame on half the country for that matter.
What makes you think any of our troops are going to survive anywhere when our government is in a crisis????? This must be settled FIRST before you can even begin to support or abandon our troops.
Obama (the man you keep defending) is reducing our armament, he has issued orders (illegally) to not use our nuclear weapons even if we are attacked first, and you have the nerve talk about someone else abandoning our troops?
How is supporting a president who is disarming our troops in battle supporting the troops???? If you truly supported our troops you would be doing everything in your power (the same as Lt. Col. Lakin) to stop him instead of attacking other Americans.
Shame on you. I will not let your liberal lies and spin distort the truth. I WILL call you on it.
I wonder who wrote Obama’s term papers?
I wonder who took Obama’s SAT?
I wonder who took Obama’s LSAT?
I know that sure as hell he didn’t.
>Honestly I think he was born in Kenya.<
If all of the people who believe such as yourself that you think he was born in Kenya would join us in calling your Senators then we might just put enough pressure on them to call for proof.
No, Artemis because that’s not what Free Republic is about. Hot button issues will always illicit hot debate. Perhaps we can just agree to disagree on this one and perhaps agree that the battle to salvage America will be fought on many fronts by many different means.
You are very welcome to notify the mods and JimRob that you believe I’m a troll.
For the sake of argument-let’s assume that Obama’s sealed birth certificate and other sealed vital records
prove that he is a legitimate Commander in Chief.
What kind of Commander in Chief would sit back and allow members of the Armed Forces to go off to war-believing that he isn’t ?
Legally he may not be required to , but, I believe that Obama has a moral obligation to reassure the men and women he is sending off to fight and die that he is their lawful and Constitutional Commander in Chief.
His refusal to take the very simple steps to end this controversy should trouble everyone, even his defenders.
But in both the Watada case and the Lakin case, the individual officer feels that they can decide that an order is unlawful. And they rightly or wrongly point to the Constitution as justification. Why is Watada wrong and Lakin right? And when Michael New claimed that the order to serve with a UN peacekeeping force was illegal and unconstitutional, was he correct in refusing orders? Was it the responsibility of his chain of command to drop everything and show New that they were right and he was wrong? Where do you draw the line?
If Obama is the fraud he appears to be, then, yes, absolutely.
Does that mean you've lost any respect for them, what with them not questioning their orders and all? What about during the Bush administration? Watada claimed it was an illegal and unconstitutional war. Did anyone who went without first determining if it was, in fact, legal also lose your respect?
I said on the same post you quote from that, “Saying you won't follow orders because you believe the CIC is not Constitutionally qualified to be president is no better than those who refused orders during the Bush administration because they believed the War on Terror was unconstitutional or against international law.” In what way can you disagree?
Ping for later
I’m sorry, but do you actually have a point?? You’re arguing from incredulity rather than dealing with substance. I don’t see the need to draw a line when somebody recognizes there are unresolved issues in the military chain-of-command and other Constitutional questions. There should be processes through which grievances can be addressed without fear of reprisal. What prevents further abuses to the Constitution if we are unable to stand up against these intial tryannical overtures, especially when the eligibility question can be expediently and comprehensively addressed through full disclosure?? Other members of the Armed Services should repsect each other and champion the truth rather than worry about falling in line over military code.
Re #191
Your words are appreciated and your tone is more sober than many on this thread including my own.
AMEN! And that is the question the Obama enablers never seem to be able to answer.
Thanks, bub. Our hearts are all in the right place!
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.