[centurion316]

Based on folks I know, I’d say MOST military members think Lakin is in the wrong.

Mr Rogers is quite right in his assertion when it is applied to professional soldiers. I use the term professional soldiers to refer to Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. He knows many such men and women as do I. You will not find much support for LTC Lakin among that group, either active or retired. And it has nothing to do with President Obama or any of the dust up over his eligibility.

There is a tradition of over 200 years standing against serving soldiers engaging in partisan politics. When members of the military have crossed this invisible line, they have invariably been met by disapproval from their peers, superiors, and subordinates. I don't see any reason to abandon this important tradition just because we don't like the man currently sitting in the chair. This is a matter for the courts and the politicians and they won't touch it with a 10-foot pole.

If LTC Lakin wanted to engage in an attack on a sitting President, he was obligated to first resign or retire. He did neither, of course, because then he would have been useless to those whispering into his ear. They cling to their forlorn hope that Lakin is the magic key to standing and will force the showdown that they want. It won't. The subject of Obama's eligibility will never be heard inside the courtroom. Instead, what will be heard will be the charges against LTC Lakin for refusing to deploy, the evidence in support of those charges, and the inevitable finding of guilty. Lakin won't become a martyr, he's just be another military prisoner in Leavenworth. After serving a very short period, he will be dismissed from the service and cashiered.

All of this will be a real shame, but it will be Lakin who pays the price for listening to the advice of people who will walk away to find their next dupe.

I have said a number of times on this forum on the many threads about this issue that were I on the court martial panel hearing LTC Lakin's case, I would vote for conviction. The vast majority of professionals would do the same and those who are active members of this forum have weighed in with similar opinions. You can have your own opinion of course, but calling people who know better liars and imbeciles won't bring many people to your point of view.

[verity]

Extremely well articulated.

[Red Steel]

There is a tradition of over 200 years standing against serving soldiers engaging in partisan politics.

Except LTC Lakin didn't take an oath about that and he does not see it that way. However, his oath of office is to defend the US Constitution which has been around as long as the US Constitution.

[Gene Eric]

>> I would vote for conviction.

For reasons of professional integrity and tradition? Not to disregard these honorable traits, but are you suggesting these factors are relevant to the case?

In your opinion, does LTC Lakin’s argument have any merit?

[Prole]

Whether or not LTC Lakin receives resounding public support from the military is fairly insignificant in the big picture. Besides, you might be surprised at how many are on the web and read about this kind of thing. Your referral to anyone who reads, understands and discusses Constitutional fraud as "unprofessional" is pretty pathetic.

History is replete with many individuals who stood up for principles that the majority was either too scared or too "professional" to support.

I don't suspect that the masses on active duty is going to be vocal about their opinions on this matter since doing so is probably punishable under the provisions of the UCMJ.

Regardless, the whole thing is being kept quiet simply because Obama probably does not have the Constitutional right to hold office, and his lackeys in the military hierarchy are probably privy as well. Even Supreme Court Clarence Thomas made a remark about Obama's questionable validity.

Those who know that Obama is a fraud number more than you, Rogers and the rest of your camp are willing to acknowledge herein.