elections have consequences.
So when does our military start living up to their oath? Obey the orders of the president... that is from the new oath instilled in 1960. That is where the confusion began. Does an officer defend the constitution or obey the illegal actions of a president?
Before 1960, that wasn't even a question. Before 1960 it read "...that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
These officers ( the highest) **know** that Obama fails -verify, that he posted fake birth documents, is using another man's social security, and claimed on the jacket of his autobiography that he was born in Kenya. Yet, they have done nothing legally or peaceful about it. They have not approached congress or the courts in an effort to provide certifiable and court acceptable evidence that Obama is eligible to be Commander in Chief of the men and women serving under them.
Our brave and honor troops deserve better and so do their families.
"...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..."
Subtle, ain't I?
“.... and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States...”
Well, now, that’s interesting because the military’s whole reason to deny Lt Col Terry Lakin his right to defend himself on the charge of disobeying a lawful order was the military’s adamant claim that the President doesn’t issue any orders.