[BP2]

1 - The deployment is fully supported by Congress as well as the President.

I wouldn't call last Fall's Afghanistan deployment of 30,000 troops "fully supported" by Congress, much less Obama himself. Obama stalled for as long as he could, and still did not meet General McChrystal's full troop request ...

However, I'm happy to see that Learning has occurred — you FINALLY admit that Lakin's Deployment Orders did NOT come from Lakin's commander, Col. Gordon Roberts.

Obviously, for the Lakin's Deployment to be "fully supported by Congress as well as the President", Congress would NOT be approving the Deployment orders originating from Col Roberts, rather from the (de facto) CinC, B. Hussein Obama.

2 - If Lakin possessed EVIDENCE that Obama was born abroad, he might have a case. However, he is using his refusal to try to obtain evidence of his suspicions. That won’t fly.

Wow. So now you think that Lt Col Lakin has inherent Investigatory Powers and has the ability to obtain Obama’s records himself. My goodness, Mr Rogers ... if EVERY plaintiff had such powers, the power and rationale of Judge-Ordered SUBPOENA and DISCOVERY would become utterly useless and obsolete, wouldn't it?!

Yes, Mr Rogers ... you are a WONDERFUL source of entertainment for us all. LOL.

Watada - I still think they should have tossed him in prison for 5-6 years. However, I believe his defense rested on his being a CO, not on GWB not being President. I’m not familiar with how the rules for COs work. I just know I despise Watada for not deploying.

Agreed. And the Left exploited him just like they did Cindy Sheehan.

However, Watada questioned his Deployment orders from Bushie (isn't that what you Libs called GWB) and his authority as CinC under the doctrine of Command Responsibility. Watada argued that IF he was ever in charge as a Commanding Officer, HE would be responsible for "war crimes".

And yet ... B. Hussein Obama himself SET PRECEDENCE by interfering with the 9th Circuit to get Watada’s case for REFUSING to abide by Deployment Orders DISMISSED.

An inconvenience truth, isn't it?

If Lakin wanted to protest Obama, he could have resigned and done so. The US military doesn’t get to decide who is CINC. The American people & Congress do that.

You “claim” to be a former O-5. And yet, the words “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same” seem ALIEN to you.

Just because YOU would shirk your duties as a military officer, don't whine if Lakin takes his oath more seriously than YOU did when you wore the uniform.

The ONLY Blind Allegiance that an Army officer is duty-bound to honor is NOT to a flesh-and-blood MAN, and certainly NOT to a British Subject like B. Hussein Obama ... but to a piece of parchment written more than two centuries ago:

[Non-Sequitur]

However, I'm happy to see that Learning has occurred — you FINALLY admit that Lakin's Deployment Orders did NOT come from Lakin's commander, Col. Gordon Roberts.

But Lakin's orders did. And those are the ones he's charged with disobeying.

And yet ... B. Hussein Obama himself SET PRECEDENCE by interfering with the 9th Circuit to get Watada’s case for REFUSING to abide by Deployment Orders DISMISSED.

And I will state for the record that Watada was wrong. That like Lakin he was guilty of refusing to obey the orders of his commanding officer, and like Lakin deserved to be court martialed. And that like Lakin he deserved to be stripped of his rank and dismissed from the Army as unfit to server. Are you willing to state for the record that Watada was right to refuse to obey his commanding officer if he felt they were illegal and that he shouldn't have been tried? Or are you saying that you agree with Obama that the case shouldn't have been tried in the first place and that the appeal should be dismissed? Is that what you are telling us?