Posted on 12/14/2010 9:25:59 AM PST by Smokeyblue
An Army doctor who disobeyed orders to deploy to Afghanistan because he questions Barack Obama's eligibility to be president has pleaded guilty to 1 of 2 charges against him.
At a court-martial proceeding Tuesday in Maryland, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin of Greeley, Colo., pleaded guilty to not meeting with a superior when ordered to do so and not showing up at Fort Campbell in Kentucky where he was supposed to report.
(Excerpt) Read more at wkrn.com ...
Whether Obama is or isn’t the President, the 20th Amendment says that if the President elect has “failed to qualify” by Jan 20th the VP elect is to “act as President until a President shall have qualified.”
The issue is whether - for whatever reason - Obama can “act as President”, and the only entity which has authority to determine that is the federal judiciary.
The military is overstepping their bounds by trying to make that decision for the civilian judiciary. Exactly what the commenter at CAAFLog SAYS should not be allowed.
IOW, this commenter is shooting his/her own argument in the foot.
Exactly. That’s exactly where we’re at right now. It started with a little lawlessness here and there from the HDOH and other government agencies, then on to threats for the media and others who could get in the way, (same kind of thing he later documentably did with the Chrysler lawyer, inspectors general, etc)... all that to get Obama in the White House, get the camel’s nose into the tent.
And since his nose has been in the tent he has wreaked full-fledged lawlessness into every area of life via his “czars”, via a Congress that doesn’t have to follow its own rules or the laws, via a Department of Injustice which sues states for being lawful, via the (as you say) Federal Bureau of Intimidation...
As an acorn it may have seemed like a cute little “tee hee” issue. But its shadow envelops the whole nation in darkness now and there are very few sane people who are still laughing at what had its conception in the HDOH’s “little white lies/deceptions”.
Oh, well, The Post & Email said it. That obviously settles everything, since we all know that the Post & Email outranks the U.S. Supreme Court and speaks with all of the authority of Jesus, Moses and Buddha.
Can you say “perjury”?
Speaking as a lawyer who has defended people indicted for perjury in federal court, I can say "perjury," but I know that it's not always easy to prove. But, on the other hand, if a foreign blog says it, that is obviously incontrovertible proof. Not.
That includes the officers above Lakin to whom he addressed this problem.
El Sordo - I was demonstrating the absurdity of the judge’s logic, by making a similarly absurd example.
(I think that burning you feel might be another problem altogether, but I wouldn’t want to pry into your personal affairs.)
Oh, I think it began long before.
Remember Sandy Burglar and his “sloppy” theft of documents from the National Archives, when (while “accidentally” displaying “sloppiness”) he slipped them into his clothing, hid them under a construction trailer, and went back in the dark of night to destroy them? No real consequences.
Remember John O. Brennan’s employees who got a slap on the wrist for “sanitizing” Barry’s passport files?
Incrementalism. Coupled with a corrupt and complicit media. This is what they meant when they invented the concept of “civic journalism” (aka, “nudge” the people into doing what their betters know is best for them, even if it means lying and propagandizing. After all, it’s for their own good because they’re too STUPID to know better.)
How about Geithner skating by for failing to pay taxes, something that would send an ordinary citizen to prison or the poor house, not win him a position in the cabinet?
I may as well throw in Rangel. Slap on the wrist but he still didn’t have the wherewithal to be grateful and graciously acknowledge his guilt.
Laws are enforced or ignored depending upon which side one is on, politically speaking.
It goes WAY back with the media. Switch the party of any of the aforementioned, and you would see cries of corruption and screaming headlines calling for retribution and congressional investigations.
Didn’t they accuse McCain of not being a NBC? Where’s Barry’s congressional investigation?
I’ve looked at the documents and asked as many questions as I can, the intellectual equivalent of shaking it, smelling it, and tasting it from every direction I can think of. That’s how I arrived at my understanding. I’m very thankful for those who have corrected me where I’ve misunderstood - such as Buckeye Texan who corrected my misunderstanding of how Article 90 and 92 are related.
My understanding is very different from Lind’s.
I put my understanding to the test by putting in the Iran scenario. What comes out of my processing is exactly what the people who ridicule me say about Iran: that if a brigade commander issued combat deployment orders to Iran without a valid President’s approval, the orders would be unlawful under the elements of lawfulness for Article 90, and Lakin would be vindicated for refusing to obey the orders.
When I put the Iran scenario through Lind’s processing, I get the Iran deployment orders being lawful because Congress has partial control of the military, and anybody who disobeyed those orders could not even BRING UP the question of whether the combat operations were approved by a valid President.
So I did my math in full view of everybody and revised as input arose. I tested my formula with a hypothetical story problem and the results showed what all the experts say is the right answer for that story problem.
Then I used Lind’s formula on the same story problem and came up with the exact opposite of what the experts say is the right answer for the Iran story problem.
The experts don’t want to address how Lind’s formula could come up with such a screwy answer in the Iran story problem, if her formula is correct. And they won’t show me how her formula SHOULD be any different for the Iran story problem than for the Afghanistan story problem.
Can you tell I’ve been helping my kids with algebra? lol
If he answers to anybody above him, that person is part of his chain of command.
The Secretary of Defense has statutory authority to issue operational orders to the UCC.
... under authority from the president, who we know specifically authroized TWO troop surges in Afghanistan. I know it's convenient to ignore the facts, but it is also dead wrong.
The P&E requested all the UIPA requests the HDOH received over a given period of time. They sorted the requests by whether they mentioned Obama. The numbers fell WAY, WAY short of what Fukino claimed for requests for Obama’s birth certificate.
Fukino’s testimony was given shortly after the P&E’s request for all those UIPA requests, so if Fukino was going to make a specific statement like that she had the exact data easily available to her. I have worked with someone putting together an affidavit, and we went over EVERY DETAIL that was in it, to ensure that nothing was misstated and everything was meticulously documented. When I compare Fukino’s testimony to the affidavit we prepared, Fukino was playing very fast and very loose with her “sworn facts”.
If she plays that fast and loose with “sworn facts” that are easily documented as false, how fast and loose do you think she’d be willing to play with “facts” that nobody can ever check up on?
As a lawyer, how much credibility would you give somebody on unverifiable facts, if she has already documentably perjured herself on something easily verifiable?
You didn’t include the next sentence of my post, which was the thrust of my argument: “Illegitimate, in the eyes of Joe America.”
The order may be technically legal, but in the eyes of the public does not pass the smell test. It raises eyebrows, it causes people to ask questions.
The situation is heartbreaking to me, and I would never empathize with, or condone someone violating their orders; the only exception to this being in defense of our precious Constitution, which this man has sworn to do.
A breakdown of the command chain is a calamity, certainly, that if not checked might lead to the ruination of the nation. The breakdown of the Constitution, however, IS the ruination of the nation. (There, I think those last 2 sentences maybe clarify my thoughts a little better.)
Is he using the issue to make his political opponents look foolish?
If so, how can this be good for the members of the military who deserve to know that they are serving under a legitimate Commander in Chief?
The “gullibles” are in a minority now. Even the liberal/Marxist comedians are taking pot shots at Obama. The reason Obama doesn't release these documents is because he CAN'T! They either don't exist or they flat out prove that he is not a natural born citizen.
Hammer, meet nail. Firmly on the head.
Exactly.
Verdict is apparently in.
From: http://www.caaflog.com/2010/12/16/united-states-v-lakin-liveblog-v/
“1545: Sentence announced. Dismissal, confinement for 6 months, total forfeitures.”
aka RINO
I'd say more like Soviet Pravda type of journalism. But what else would you expect from AP? In case you haven't noticed, they've been part of the media wing of the ruling 'Rat party for decades.
From the posted article: Hawaii officials say they have records proving Obama was born there and therefore eligible to be president.
Hawaii officials said no such thing! They said they had birth records on him, but never said explicitly that he was born in Hawaii. Under the Hawaii statutes in effect in 1961, it was certainly possible for Obama's mother or grandparents - as Hawaii residents - to have registered a foreign birth with the Hawaii Dept. of Health.
In addition, if, for the sake of argument, Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, that would not by itself qualify him constitutionally for the presidency. The undisputed fact that his father (if his father was indeed Barack Obama Sr.) was never an American citizen implies that he is not a "natural born citizen," according to the commonly understood meaning of that phrase at the time it was written into the Constitution.
All things considered, Lakin does OK. This is the average sentence received by most of the "Bush's illegal war" idiots from the last administration - except of course, they were all enlisted men and some of their punitive discharges varied - from dishonorable, to bad-conduct to OTH. Lakin, as an officer, may only be dismissed.
I would like to give every one of the guys who voted for that sentence an order to deploy to Iran and then give them the exact same sentence when they disobey the orders and Lind refuses to let them even bring up whether a valid President approved the use of force in Iran.
The measure they give should be the measure they get. They’ve made their bed, and now they will lie in it.
Although to be truthful it is Lind who deserves to lie in this bed. Everybody else was more or less handcuffed. Could they have chosen to give him no sentence at all?
Sigh.
Agree to disagree.
(Butter’s Iran example was better than mine, anyway.)
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.