Posted on 02/24/2009 10:14:10 AM PST by Onerom99
You said — “It’s so important to you to dump and pile on this soldier. Why not dump and pile on the Thug In Chief who is quickly destroying our country?”
It doesn’t “pay off” — politically — to “dump and pile on” the person... It’s counterproductive for what you want to accomplish — in terms of the politics of the matter. The goal you have (and others) is to either block or modify the legislative proposals and minimize what is considered to be damage.
It may be fun to vent and sing out a long list of negative adjectives and “get it off your shoulders”, until the next time around, but that’s all that happens.
Once you get into a lot of personal attacks, concerning Obama, that takes the focus off the legislation and bills and gets the other side defensive in terms of the “personality” of Obama. You won’t win that one and you won’t get anyone to consider the “issues”. It will simply be attack — back and forth — and nothing more.
So, you’re self-defeating when you use that kind of language about the President and you take people (who are on the other side and whom you might need to defeat some legislation) — “off message” and “off the issue” that is important.
I would think you would know that, politically speaking.
—
But, what is going on here, is really more for “singing to the choir” more than anything else. Everyone (in a certain group) is already convinced that anything that comes out of Obama’s mouth or his administration is to be followed immediately with a long list of negative adjectives — which does not help defeat the bills or get them modified.
It’s also a sign of impotence, when a certain group uses a lot of negative language towards a person in political office. The more shrill they get, the less they can do (from their own realization and understanding of their own impotence).
So, I’m saying to get something constructive done, politically speaking, and take on the issues, and do so in a manner that doesn’t just speak to fellow conservatives, but in a manner that can convince a few on the other side. You’re gonna need a few of them to help...
BUT, as usual, I don’t expect that many of these people will be smart about the issue, and instead, feel better hollering and screaming about Obama, than getting anything politically important done and accomplished.
And posting graphics is not all bad. After all, I am a man...and as Heff will tell you, we are more visual and need optical stimulus (A word you and your savoir are familiar with).
Maybe, since I am so visual and do not want to short my keyboard yet again, I should post this...Aren't they the cutest socks????
You said — “Birthers are yet another group that doesn’t mind making Free Republic and indeed the entire conservative movement the laughing stock of America - and the free world.”
You know..., if many had kept their mouth shut about their “derangements” — many people in the world might not have known that there were crazies on board on Free Republic. But now..., the “cat is out of the bag”...
Also, see post #101 for what I would consider to be a more rational “stance” to take in fighting Obama. I would make a whole lot less “personal attacks” and gear myself towards the issues, absent “personalities”.
To have many “ranting and raving” on “personalities” is more like having a group masturbation exercise, for the personal benefit of these people, and never accomplishing anything “politically”...
Ummm, say IrishPennant..., I have a few “picture books” that can help you learn to read, from when my kids were little, if you’re interested....
Well, I gotta say one thing, at least you can post “some” nice pictures... LOL..
She’s got a very nice figure...
Love it...thanks...You want me to send a short bus to your home to take you to the post office for mailing?
You said — “Love it...thanks...You want me to send a short bus to your home to take you to the post office for mailing?”
Heck! Why take the bus, when I can drive my car and gas is so darned cheap in Oklahoma... :-)
[... Tulsa came out to be the cheapest average price on gas... woo-hoo! ...]
Hehehehehe....Told ya...guys like visual stimulus...not big gov stimulus.
Major General Commanding General Carroll D. Childers Joins Military Suit
CONSENT FORM
DATE: 24 Feb 2009
Attn. Orly Taitz, Esq.
26302 La Paz, Ste. 211
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
I agree to be a plaintiff in the legal action to be filed by Orly Taitz, Esq. in a PETITION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT THAT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT of the U.S., nor TO BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the U.S. ARMED FORCES, in that I am or was a sworn member of the U.S. military (subject to recall), and therefore when serving as an active member of the military, I would be unable to follow any orders given by a Constitutionally unqualified Commander In Chief, since by doing so I would be subject to charges of aiding and abetting fraud and committing acts of treason.
TYPED NAME or Signature: Carroll D. Childers
FULL NAME: Carroll Dean Childers
POSITION IN THE MILITARY/RANK/DATES SERVED/STATUS: Retired as Major General Commanding General 29TH Infantry Division VA ARNG 1999, 44 years service
OCCUPATION: Consultant Registered Professional Engineer
ACHIEVEMENTS: Retired 38 Yrs DON Civil Service, RDT&E, several patents, 14 months in combat zones as science advisor (Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Operation Desert Storm), Oldest DHG of a Ranger Course (42), retired MG, married 50+ years, still ticking and kicking
I can present a long list of reasons, taken individually, which convinced me NOT to vote for Barack Hussein Obama; his crime associates in the USA, his lack of experience, the mystery of his citizenship, his promise to make coal power industry bankrupt through excessive regulations, his constant adjustment of position on issues, his tax plan, his spread the wealth admission, his obvious socialistic goals, his associations with foreign leaders unfriendly to the USA, the lies he tells about a range of subjects including perhaps who his biological father really is, his most recent revelation of having a “National Security Force” (whatever that is)...............all of these says he is a person of mystery, of no integrity, and in fact paints him with the same narcissist paint of Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, and Kim Jong Ill.
But then, there is a simple more direct, easier to understand reason that I did not vote for him and that is his lack of respect for the country that is giving him the opportunity to run for the highest office in the land........even though I personally think he is not constitutionally eligible.
But more than 50% of America voted for this charlatan and he now has the helm of the ship of state. Even so, he is not MY President. I will not refer to him as such. I will call him Resident Obama, and an illegal resident of the white house at that. I resent him for what he is not. He has not given proof that he is a natural born citizen of these United States. He has spent millions of dollars protecting the truth of his birth from public knowledge; therefore, it is obvious he has something to hide. He is an interloper, a usurper, a fake, a scam artist, a Chicago crook, a recipient of bribes and gratuitous income for which he paid no tax, a socialist (perhaps only a communist or Marxist), and a grave danger to the future of the America that I love and have protected since I was 17 years old.
I have told my two senators and my member of the House of Representatives. I have written 9 justices of the Supreme Court as well as President Bush before he left office. NONE have responded, therefore, they are all complicit and should all be severely punished for having failed in their sworn oath to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The instant Obamb was sworn in, he violated the oath he took because he took the office knowing he is ineligible and there stood Judge Roberts who should have immediately had Obama arrested and deported.
Other than this, my key short-term complaint is that he has not had a heart attack in office. But most important, what I really want is the truth; is Obama a natural born citizen of the United States. If not a natural born citizen, America has been defrauded and then we would be stuck with Joe Biden whose only redeeming attribute is that he is probably not a communist.
Carroll D. Childers P.E.
Major General (Retired)
Ummm...just WOW! This is a fantastic addition...a two star General is a great add...even if retired!!!!
Socks. Socks? Oh, you are right. There are socks.
Bwaahaaahaaa...whenever I see that picture I always think of the movie Weird Science...Kelly LeBrock was okay, but I would have built this girl in front of my fridge.
I’ll quote part of this guy’s statement —
—
I can present a long list of reasons, taken individually, which convinced me NOT to vote for Barack Hussein Obama; his crime associates in the USA, his lack of experience, the mystery of his citizenship, his promise to make coal power industry bankrupt through excessive regulations, his constant adjustment of position on issues, his tax plan, his spread the wealth admission, his obvious socialistic goals, his associations with foreign leaders unfriendly to the USA, the lies he tells about a range of subjects including perhaps who his biological father really is, his most recent revelation of having a “National Security Force” (whatever that is)...............all of these says he is a person of mystery, of no integrity, and in fact paints him with the same narcissist paint of Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, and Kim Jong Ill.
—
I would say that this paragraph — is a big mistake for *accomplishing* what is intended. What that paragraph makes *very clear* — is that this guy is talking about a “political issue” and a “political decision”. If there is going to be any *one reason* why the courts won’t touch this issue (in the form that it keeps coming up) is that a lot of this is phrased and said in political terms — and not in legal matters.
A judge is going to look at this and say that’s a political decision and the election was for the purpose of determining that.
This guy really doesn’t help *his case* (in what he wants to do) by saying what he is saying.
What everyone needs to do, in handling any case like this is stick strictly to evidence of fraud and *prove it* in the case. There should be *absolutely no political talk* and there should be *no denigrating language* in terms of character assassination. It doesn’t help one’s case. It should be very “dry and legal” and more like a doctor’s report — very “antiseptic”.
I mean, look at it this way — as soon as someone starts mentioning “Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, and Kim Johng Ill” — the person has lost the battle right there, in terms of presenting something in which you are not *emotionally involved* — which is what it should be in a legal case like this.
There’s a saying on the Internet — Godwin’s law — that the discussion has deteriorated and probably *ended* when Hitler is mentioned... LOL...
Godwin’s law — “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin’s Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups.”
http://catb.org/jargon/html/G/Godwins-Law.html
You need to brush up on the history of the Nuremburg Trials that took place immediately after WWII, and the impact it had on the Military Code of Justice. Many of the Nazi soldiers on trial for war crimes used the defense of "I was only following orders." That defense was not acceptable as soldiers have a sworn duty to uphold and obey the Law, whether civil or military, and to follow the Military Codes of Conduct and Rules of Engagement. Soldiers have a sworn duty to NOT follow any orders issued from a superior when those orders would require the commission of an illegal act, or an act that runs counter to the Codes or the Rules. Some might even say that soldiers have a moral authority to NOT follow unconscionable, unethical, or reprehensible orders.
The same duty to NOT obey orders applies in situations where orders are issued by a superior who lacks the legal, military, and even moral authority to issue them.
Normally, military personnel who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors risk serious consequences. Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY disobey a superior commissioned officer. Article 91 makes it a crime to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer. Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the disobedience does not have to be "willful" under this article).
In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death.
Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you're given, right? WRONG!! These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it.
Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal.
The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the "I was only following orders" defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound to any French Port. However, when President John Adams wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President's instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port. The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders "act at their own peril" when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal.
The Vietnam War presented the United States military courts with more cases of the "I was only following orders" defense than any previous conflict. The decisions during these cases reaffirmed that following manifestly illegal orders is not a viable defense from criminal prosecution.
But, what about following the orders of someone who is not a legal superior, such as the Commander-in-Chief?
A scanario such as this are part and parcel to decisions rendered in cases where one party in a joint agreement does not have the statutory authority to carry out an action, such as a minor signing a contract where minors are not permiotted to enter into contracts.
If a party is not legally bound or authorized to enter into an agreement, any agreement entered into is rendered null and void. Similarly, if the party does not legally have the statutory authority to enter into an agreement with a second party, that agreement is also rendered null and void.
It is, therefore, the duty of military personnel to judge for themselves the legality of entering into an agreement with another person, which, in this case, is an agreement to follow a direct order from a superior who is not legally authorized to issue that order, and the correct course of action for that person is to refuse to enter into what amounts to an illegal agreement and an illegal action stemming from that agreement.
Rather than get into trouble for disobeying a command that carries no weight of military law, but, in fact, the act of refusing to obey a command for which he or she is not legally bound to obey, does comply with military law.
Bottom Line: if a soldier's superior cannot legally issue orders, or the superior's orders carry no force of law, or run counter to Military Codes of Conduct, Rules of Engagement, or what is considered by civilized society to be universally unconscionable, unethical, or reprehensible, then the correct course of action is for the soldier to disobey them.
Any folks in the military care to weigh in on this discussion?
Thanks, LucyT.
Ditto Ping.
Do you have that one of the Good Samaritan who reminds you of Obama????
Yeah....don't you wish we could embed sound bytes? I can hear Farley in my head.
Just guessing, but sounds reasonable. Being a military man means never having to have to say, "I am sorry, but I just have to dis-obey that order, sir!"
Except for the exceptions, of course, which are written down somewhere.
Just my contribution towards continuity of command.
Travis, wanna weigh in on this one?
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.