Posted on 08/13/2010 4:35:58 AM PDT by roaddog727
Supporters of a decorated Army officer who is facing a series of charges for questioning the legitimacy of orders in the chain of command under Barack Obama as commander in chief are accusing the Army of threatening to "taser" the physician.
The claim comes from the American Patriot Foundation, which is generating support for Lt. Col. Terry Lakin.
He appeared at an Army hearing to be arraigned on the various charges last Friday.
It was at that hearing, the foundation reports, that the threat was made.
The foundation reported, "The afternoon before the hearing, LTC Steven Brodsky told LTC Lakin's counsel that Lakin must report hours before the hearing to his duty post at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in order for him to be 'transported under escort' to make sure he showed up at the arraignment 'to avoid embarrassing his unit."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
If they wanted to keep it quiet, they would not prosecute. It won't be the generals who make the decision about "discovery", it will be the trial judge, who is a lady Colonel.
Sure they do, but they'd need to be issued by Acting President Biden. Lord Help Us All. But that would be preferable to having an Constitutionally ineligible usurper issuing them, and passing laws and executive orders that affect us all.
Wow, planes falling from the air if he’s declared ineligible. I suppose we hold courts martial for the pilots who are flying their planes without legal orders to do so.
Don't get stuck on stupid.
Doesn't take orders to land your plane safely.
Part of the 'defacto officer' doctrine would hold people not liable for following the orders of someone most everyone presumned to be President, as long as those orders did not involve doing something otherwise illegal.
You are a moron but you knew that.
Some days I just feel like being nice.
You ever find those 430,000 Haitians hiding under your bed?
What’s the definition of marriage ? is it between a man and a woman ? or blur the lines, and say it is what you want it to be ?
Going to war in this country is always a political decision. The President, IAW the Constitution is the Commander-in-Chief. That is to say, a lawfully qualified President. A deployment order to a unit or individual soldier is inherently an order from the C-in-C.
Larkin refused the order to deploy because he believes—and so do I—that the Marxist now occupying the WH is not a lawful president. This man has never produced a credible document proving he is a native born American. In addition, the demrat party and the state-run propaganda organs have covered for him by passing off outright bogus documents and/or documents that prove nothing. And then, of course, we have recordings of Onada’s grandmother saying Onada was born in Kenya. And then, Onada’s various name and social security number changes make this all a bit difficult to track. Oh, and let’s not forget the rampant voter fraud perpetrated by the demrats in the last presidential election. But people have tracked Onada’s past, to the extent it can be, and sorted it out. Upshot: The available credible evidence strongly points to Onada’s Kenyan birth.
Assuming this is true—in the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary—Onada is not a lawfully elected president. Therefore, he cannot be a Constitutionally empowered C-in-C. Therefore, any strategic orders emanating from his bogus C-in-C role are unlawful. An order to deploy is a strategic not a tactical order. I’m hoping that you understand the difference between the two. Larkin would be simply insubordinate if he, for example, disobeyed, an order to wear the designated uniform of the day or salute a superior officer.
As far as I know he’s done none of these things. What he has done is challenged a bogus C-in-C strategic order to deploy. As an American citizen he has a perfect right to do that. Being an American soldier does not take away one’s citizenship and the responsibilities that go along with it.
As for Larkin’s personal longer term situation, I don’t think he’s concerned about that. He’s concerned about the larger question of Onada’s eligibility to be president and ordering American soldiers to go to war. That you apparently have no clue about the larger question and Larkin’s courage in taking on this fight I find quite astounding. Is there anything else in the Constitution that you’re indifferent to?
The precedent of having an ineligible presidential candidate sitting in the WH—and being allowed to stay there—is unfathomable to me.
A number of states have passed, or are in the process of passing, legislation that establishes a process for vetting presidential candidates. In other words unless they’re Constitutionally qualified they cannot be presidential candidates in those states.
I’ll bet you a case of beer or a bottle of you’re favorite wine that Onada will not qualify to be on the ballot in those states in 2012.
No doubt.
In fact, I would think an article 32 investigation needs to be started immediately
It makes me sick as well.
And you are spot on - it will be tried in the court of public opinion.
BUT, with that, ZERO and the ass-clown posse can not have this in the open.
Quite a sticky whicket......
Oh, okay. But only ‘cause you said so.
You are an idiot - keep your heaqd buried in the sand. You must be a Dem. Although Germans elected a psychopath during one of the worst depressions and hyper inflations in history - the country survived.
Americans elected a muslim during 6% unemployment due to idiots like you. 7 years after 911 - they elected a muslim who will destroy america and will build a mosque next to the WTC thanks to idiots like you.
It is so easy to push your buttons fritzie....wipe the spittle from the corners of your mouth, it’s unbecoming.
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.