Click the pic Thank you, JoeProBono
This Little Cutie Will Soon Be
Ready For His Bottle of Tabasco!
Become a monthly donor
And keep the FReepathon Dragons away
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 02/06/2012 8:19:50 PM PST by James Thomas
TOPEKA, KS (KCTV) - A Kansas board that denied a licensed doctor of osteopathic medicine a license was primarily concerned about the man's political views.
The Kansas State Board of Healing Arts is a 15-member panel appointed by the governor and decides the fate of doctors in Kansas.
Terrence Lee Lakin rose to the ranks of lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army. He served on the front lines in Afghanistan and the war zone in Bosnia as well as a medical mission to Honduras. He saved lives around the world and received a Bronze Star for his service.
"I like helping people," said Lakin. "And I've been, since college wanting to be in medical field and help others."
(Excerpt) Read more at kctv5.com ...
I certainly would not exonerate those who cheered him on, or even himself, for coming to that decision. But the consequences far outweigh his actions. His political stand, in violation of his military orders, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with his established skill as a surgeon, or ability to treat and care for patients. Maybe you and I have just never taken a costly principled position, however faulty our thinking.
You sound like you are enlisted, if you are serving your country at all.
Clearly you do not understand the Officer’s Oath, and you do not understand this case, nor have been following it enough to understand the details.
Since you weren't even posting on this forum during the Lakin trial, feel free to click on my in forum link at my profile page. You'll see I posted extensively on Lakin and predicted with 100% accuracy exactly how this case would end from the moment Lakin made his intentions known. Had you ever served (which clearly you haven't) you'd have been able to accurately predict this outcome as well.
The only thing I failed to predict was Lakin pleading guilty and begging the court for leniency.
Clearly you do not understand the Officer’s Oath, and you do not understand this case, nor have been following it enough to understand the details.”
Excuse me.
“You sound like you are enlisted...”
And how, pray tell, are we ignorant peasants who do the vast majority of the bleeding for our country supposed to sound? Do we use “ain't” and “aw, shucks” and scratch our privates as we chew on a blade of grass while pulling up our ill-fitting, unstylish trousers?
As an enlisted person in my youth, who fought for his country, has permanent injuries to show for it, and took over directing an action from dead officers, all I can say is cram it where the sun don't shine.
Why don't you tend to worshiping your little Vattel idol and drop any pretense that someone who would utter the ignorant sentence cited above has any insight into anything to do with either honor or the military?
I understand where you are coming from. You and your friend are more than welcome enough to beat your chests around until they bleed, or ride the “honor and pride” bandwagon until the wheels fall off. You apparently have a chip on your shoulder with regards to your superiors, both past and present, this much is certain.
Parking your ego aside, you may feel obliged to re-read what I stated so that you understand my legal argument. Officers and enlisted abide by different oaths. Officers have the ability to question orders, especially by those who have not proven themselves legally authorized to command. This is not the case for enlisted personnel, and some do not know they are unique.
Surely one in the service such as yourself should understand these facts, would you say?
Listen pal, you're going to find yourself treading on awfully thin ice around here with these kinds of comments. On Free Republic, we stand up for our men and women serving honorably in uniform regardless of what we think of the current Commander in Chief. Since you clearly need some schooling on the Lakin case, I'd suggest going back a couple of years, long before you arrived, to the earliest threads in April 2010. You'll see that T_O_C, myself and every other former and current active duty FReeper who opined on this case predicted with great accuracy exactly what the outcome would be --a task as difficult as predicting the sun would rise in the east. The only people predicting success in the Lakin case were those who had never served. They were wrong. And if you ask Mr. Lakin today, he'd likely tell you that listening to these fools was the greatest mistake he ever made.
While you are perusing these old threads, learning something useful, please take the time to reflect on some of (former USN enlisted) Jim Robinson's comments after some of your fellow birthers decided to use Lakin's justly-earned dismissal as a forum to bash the military. You might learn something about Free Republic that would be of great benefit to your future posting privileges.
Your tone was clearly and deliberately patronizing to enlisted personnel, who are not only brave, selfless and dedicated, but who understand quite well the obligations incumbent upon all members of the armed forces. Officers worthy of their position understand that.
As for your statement about questioning those who have not proved themselves legally authorized to command, Lakin’s particular interpretation of that was judged by his fellow military officers. They found it wanting,
Your idle threats do not bode well for your pride and honor, nor do you know what rank I retain.
You have perceived my comments to be negative. I asked you a simple question because your response was that of a naive recruit fresh out of high school.
Honor is not earned through service. Service to the country never makes one a hero. Honor is earned through actions of courage, dilligence, humanity, and humility. I know full well the chain of command all the way up to the Joint Chiefs. I understand that chest beating is not a trait of those with true valor.
Lakin was no slouch. Was he naive? Perhaps. He paid for that...gracefully I might add. Yet, he deserved more than tarnish other service personnel bode on him. His actions of meritorious service throughout his career should be considered above all. The court knew full well the intent of his actions, regardless of faulty counsel. Failing to report to duty is usually initiated by someone who made a poor decision joining the service without careful consideration. Or he is a traitor who serves the enemy. Lakin is neither. The MT also knew full well Lakin received poor counsel. MT's are there to punish those of crimes against the nation, not punish those who question the authority of a usurping commander in chief.
Our servicemen are supposed to support each other, not feed each other to the wolves. Belittling those who rightfully question authority should never be punished as "being one without valor". Lakin paid for his error in protocol, never for honoring his oath nor his care for the nation.
It is truly unfortunate we have so many such as yourself who do not understand the significance of Lakin's quest. You are on board with Malihi and countless others, hiding behind the shield of "honor and pride" in your nation when you know full well the commander in chief is a dual citizen. And since you are active duty or have served, you should know that no soldier is allowed that privilege.
Your tone was clearly and deliberately patronizing to enlisted personnel
My tone was that of him acting like one who was dropped off the bus from Des Moine in Fort Hood who has no idea of what the Oath of a Military Officer means.
I respect all service personnel who show dedication to the United States Consitution above all others. I show no respect to active duty personnel who continue to belittle their fellow soldiers for trying to uphold the Constitution, no matter how foolish, naive, or crazy they may think him to be.
I don't know if you were around when this was discussed as it happened. But current and ex-military took no pleasure in Lakin’s predicament. We generally felt sorry for his family. But to virtually a man it was understood that his oath doesn't allow him to do what you claim and that he must face the consequences accordingly. Said consequences were clear and accurately predicted by those with legal experience. Military officers adjudicated and applied them in accordance with proper statutory authority.
I am fully aware of Colonel Roberts’ qualifications.
Roberts knew full well the Oath. There is a distinct difference between intent and protocol. Roberts understood the separation, and decided to attack the protocol instead of the intent. This is most unfortunate. Had General Washington been in the court room, he would have grabbed Roberts by the ear and tossed him out onto the street.
In terms of military valor and service, Colonel Roberts is the better of either of us. Your belittling of him based on your own personal prejudices speaks very poorly of you.
As Reagan so elegantly stated in 1989:
Whatever else history may say about me when I’m gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears; to your confidence rather than your doubts.
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.