But how does that resolve anything for Lakin?
It wouldn't change what Lakin's already done, or the charges he's facing. The court-martial would simply continue on exactly the same.
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.