Army Colonel's Challenge to Obama's Constitutional Legitimacy Receives a Boost

[amy31416]

Oh good lord I have yet to say Lakin is a defender of the Constitution. But he is this act defending the Constitution(first time I even mentioned this BTW). So now you have switched gears on us and it's about the wars. Just trying to track this man.

Consistency is key. It's why I like Ron Paul--he criticized Bush just as much as he criticizes Obama--you expect me to drop my standards because it's convenient to our agenda?

Forget it.

I didn't switch gears...from the start, I asked why this guy didn't criticize Bush for starting two unconstitutional wars--apparently that's not a problem for you.

 

[Jace]

Did he request Bush's proof of citizenship prior to going into Afghanistan? Did he question whether going into war without a formal declaration from congress was Constitutional?

Probably not. Fucking hypocrite.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people resisting participating in our military machine, but be consistent.

I'll apologize if he did question Bush, for the record.

Bush was forced to reveal all manner of records about his past, including his National Guard records, his DUI and school records. There was never any doubt about George Bush's citizenship because he never lived overseas, was never schooled overseas and didn't have a foreign father, a foreign stepfather, foreign grandparents and an aunt who is an illegal alien for godsakes.

There was doubt about McCain's eligibility and he showed his birth certificate. The real one with signatures and the name of a hospital on it.

Likewise, there is doubt about Obama's eligibility, which could easily be cleared up with transparency and the release of his documents. But he has released nothing but a vague, computer generated certification of live birth printed in 2007, which has no independently verifiable information, and none of the information you would expect to find on a birth certificate. I didn't have any doubt about his eligibility until I saw that certification that they were trying to pass off as a birth certificate, which should raise questions in any thinking person's mind. What hospital was he born in and why the refusal to release the certificate that the state of Hawaii says is on file?

Approach the issue as a skeptic and weigh the evidence and don't rationalize what you believe. Trust but verify, don't attack people and name call, and seek out evidence as an impartial researcher would. The evidence should speak for itself. A certificate of live birth is the evidence that is being sought, and being withheld. Why?

All of Obama's records have been sealed. Everything is gone, from kindergarten up through Harvard and after. He is an enigma. He is a creation of the media and the media is covering for him.

Anyone who demands transparency from him, just as was demanded from Bush, is shouted down as a racist. His supporters throw out the race card even though Bush and McCain were forced to reveal far more documentation about themselves.

Some people will put their heads in the sand, others will ridicule, and others will lash out in anger and fear. But this is a Constitutional issue. Leave the emotion out of it. Real and serious crimes may have been committed. Is Obama above the law? LTC Lakin and now General McInerney are making a brave stand. They have taken on the bankers, the media and powerful people in our government. We will find out how they deal with this threat. The New York/DC establishment might lose the military if they play their cards wrong, and then things will get very interesting, and dangerous for all of us.

 

[Stary Hickory]

Consistency is key. It's why I like Ron Paul--he criticized Bush just as much as he criticizes Obama--you expect me to drop my standards because it's convenient to our agenda?

Forget it.

I didn't switch gears...from the start, I asked why this guy didn't criticize Bush for starting two unconstitutional wars--apparently that's not a problem for you.

No you simply are attacking anyone who raises the issue by saying they are republicans or right wingers. It's the ONLY thing that has been used to cloud this issue and defend Obama from day one.

Get the politics of it, why does it matter if Obama is a Democrat or Republican? I only care if they are a decent human being and are not destroying my rights. And they ought to follow and obey the law.

I don't like Bush because I think he was an ignorant moron who probably never read the Constitution and did not give a damn about it. And I dislike Obama because I think he knows the Constitution very well but he doesn't give a krap and thinks he has some right to run my life and take my money.

Despite this only one of them has this "looming" issue that should have been resolved PRIOR to becoming POTUS.

 

[amy31416]

Bush was forced to reveal all manner of records about his past, including his National Guard records, his DUI and school records. There was never any doubt about George Bush's citizenship because he never lived overseas, was never schooled overseas and didn't have a foreign father, a foreign stepfather, foreign grandparents and an aunt who is an illegal alien for godsakes.

There was doubt about McCain's eligibility and he showed his birth certificate. The real one with signatures and the name of a hospital on it.

Likewise, there is doubt about Obama's eligibility, which could easily be cleared up with transparency and the release of his documents. But he has released nothing but a vague, computer generated certification of live birth printed in 2007, which has no independently verifiable information, and none of the information you would expect to find on a birth certificate. I didn't have any doubt about his eligibility until I saw that certification that they were trying to pass off as a birth certificate, which should raise questions in any thinking person's mind. What hospital was he born in and why the refusal to release the certificate that the state of Hawaii says is on file?

Approach the issue as a skeptic and weigh the evidence and don't rationalize what you believe. Trust but verify, don't attack people and name call, and seek out evidence as an impartial researcher would. The evidence should speak for itself. A certificate of live birth is the evidence that is being sought, and being withheld. Why?

All of Obama's records have been sealed. Everything is gone, from kindergarten up through Harvard and after. He is an enigma. He is a creation of the media and the media is covering for him.

Anyone who demands transparency from him, just as was demanded from Bush, is shouted down as a racist. His supporters throw out the race card even though Bush and McCain were forced to reveal far more documentation about themselves.

Some people will put their heads in the sand, others will ridicule, and others will lash out in anger and fear. But this is a Constitutional issue. Leave the emotion out of it. Real and serious crimes may have been committed. Is Obama above the law? LTC Lakin and now General McInerney are making a brave stand. They have taken on the bankers, the media and powerful people in our government. We will find out how they deal with this threat. The New York/DC establishment might lose the military if they play their cards wrong, and then things will get very interesting, and dangerous for all of us.

Oh for god's sake--did this soldier question Bush on the Constitutionality of his wars or not? He's a hero who adheres to his Constitutional oath, right?

And I'm quite sure that he assumed his citizenship as it was never brought up.

Be consistent. That's all.

 

[Jace]

Oh for god's sake--did this soldier question Bush on the Constitutionality of his wars or not? He's hero who adheres to his Constitutional oath, right?

And I'm quite sure that he assumed his citizenship as it was never brought up.

Be consistent. That's all.

So give Obama a pass for the sake of consistency?

Anyway, Lakin is not against the wars. He has questions about the eligibility of his Commander in Chief, and he wants those questions answered before he once again puts his ass on the line.

You are willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, but not Lakin? Lock him up so that a document that is public record in most states can remain away from prying eyes?

 

[amy31416]

So give Obama a pass for the sake of consistency?

Anyway, Lakin is not against the wars. He has questions about the eligibility of his Commander in Chief, and he wants those questions answered before he once again puts his ass on the line.

You are willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, but not Lakin? Lock him up so that a document that is public record in most states can remain away from prying eyes?

Nope. I'm not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when he ignored the Constitution during the previous administration, and it's suddenly so important to him now.

And no, I do not give Obama the benefit of the doubt, I think he may well be far worse than Bush, if I can go off his record thus far.

 

[Stary Hickory]

So give Obama a pass for the sake of consistency?

Anyway, Lakin is not against the wars. He has questions about the eligibility of his Commander in Chief, and he wants those questions answered before he once again puts his ass on the line.

You are willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, but not Lakin? Lock him up so that a document that is public record in most states can remain away from prying eyes?

It's just more of the same attack the messenger, call them crazy, ridicule them and so on. Anything but just deal with the damn issue. It's just a way people try to deflect discussion or thought when they have some kind of bias they are harboring but don't want to outright reveal.

Lakin is not the "role model", like 0.05% of military members refused to go to war. Most of them had no idea it was Unconstitutional, this fact was not exactly floating about in the media that I read. However he is doing the right thing here, which is important.

 

[amy31416]

It's just more of the same attack the messenger, call them crazy, ridicule them and so on. Anything but just deal with the damn issue. It's just a way people try to deflect discussion or thought when they have some kind of bias they are harboring but don't want to outright reveal.

Lakin is not the "role model", like 0.05% of military members refused to go to war. Most of them had no idea it was Unconstitutional, this fact was not exactly floating about in the media that I read. However he is doing the right thing here, which is important.

Or it might be that I like consistency...if you take an oath to the Constitution, defend it regardless of who is president. And he failed in that regard, which doesn't speak well of his motives.

 

[Stary Hickory]

Or it might be that I like consistency...if you take an oath to the Constitution, defend it regardless of who is president. And he failed in that regard, which doesn't speak well of his motives.

What are his motives? Really? You assume he would not do the same if it was a R? Right? The fact of the matter is you know nothing about the guy. He could be a Democrat. There are a lot of Dems who also fight the wars.

In any case this has absolutely nothing to do with whether Obama has a problem or not.

 

[Jace]

Or it might be that I like consistency...if you take an oath to the Constitution, defend it regardless of who is president. And he failed in that regard, which doesn't speak well of his motives.

But do you agree that Obama should release the certificate of live birth?

 

[idirtify]

Did he request Bush's proof of citizenship prior to going into Afghanistan? Did he question whether going into war without a formal declaration from congress was Constitutional?

Probably not. Fucking hypocrite.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people resisting participating in our military machine, but be consistent.

I'll apologize if he did question Bush, for the record.

One out of two is better than none and I’m sure it took a lot of courage, so how about we don’t call them hypocrites? Plus, considering the widespread reasons for suspicion (I don’t remember any such reasons for suspicion circulating about Bush), I imagine the main concern of such military men is more whether Obama is actually their chief commander and less whether a war is constitutional or not.

But what the heck…I’m sure neither of these guys did a lot of things they could have – so yeah, let’s further denigrate them and their heroic actions and let’s think up some more nasty names. What fun!

 

[idirtify]

Last I checked, he did release his birth certificate, for Christ's sake. Verified by several sources.

ETA: By the way, I think Obama is even worse than Bush, but can we PLEASE focus on the real issues?

Apparently you didn’t check the internet document closely enough.

Focus on whatever issue you want. If this ain’t your fave, why are you here?

 

[idirtify]

ARGH! Why didn't he know that congress needs to declare war then? Where was he when Bush sent him and his comrades to die under illegal orders?

I don’t know where he was, but under that standard I have to ask: Where were you?

 

[Icymudpuppy]

It takes a lot of courage to stand up and say "no, I won't deploy". This guy has some of that courage, but not as much as this guy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehren_Watada

 

[idirtify]

Or it might be that I like consistency...if you take an oath to the Constitution, defend it regardless of who is president. And he failed in that regard, which doesn't speak well of his motives.

OK, amy, about your rationale that blames these men for what they did not do. How far are you going with it? Do you wish failure on them for what they are DOING? I mean if you aren’t trying to derail this thread, you must have a better tie-in.

 

[libertarian4321]

With 17 years of service under his belt, and a spotless record that saw him receive numerous awards from the military including a Bronze Star earned for service during a previous tour of duty in Afghanistan,"

This guy is a doctor and a fairly senior officer. I can pretty much guarantee the greatest danger he faced in Afghanistan is 1) paper cuts or 2) if a surgeon, cutting himself. Note that the "bronze star" if often awarded for just showing up and doing your job- as there is no "valour" device on his award, we can conclude that he showed up for work on time and did his job. Don't try to bull shit us into believing this guy is Rambo- you sure won't bull shit those of us who have served.

Reassigned by the Army to the Pentagon while his court martial has been proceeding, he awaits a trial that will begin on October 13th at Fort Meade in northern Virginia.

Fuck me, when did they move Ft. Meade to Virginia? I'm sure the folks at new American aren't dip shits, so I must assume that they picked up the entire post and moved it to Virginia from Maryland since I served there. Must have been quite a project...

Not alone in backing Lakin, he is the highest ranking military officer to render his support for the recalcitrant lieutenant colonel.

Retired military officer. He retired almost 2 decades ago from the Air Force. He's been a Fox News "analyst" since then.

Okay, folks, here's the rules on refusing to obey orders. You can refuse to follow an unlawful order in the heat of battle if it's against the Geneva convention or the rules of war- in other words, if following the order would be a war crime. For example, if your commanding officer tells you to light up a school full of children, you can refuse that order and you will be upheld.

However, you can not refuse to obey your superiors over your belief that in a political technicality. If that were the case, there would be anarchy in the military- any dip shit that didn't want to go on patrol would make up some bull shit excuse- "Captain, I'm not going on patrol until you prove to me that President Bush/Obama/Nixon/whatever was born in the USA" or "Captain, I'm not going to charge up that hill because President Bush/Obama/Nixon/whatever violated the Constitution when he signed a bill that I believe is unConstitutional" or "Captain, I refuse to fire on the enemy because I believe the war in Iraq is un Constitutional"- are you fucking kidding me?

Yes, you can refuse to follow orders over some "question" you may have, but you'd better be damned well prepared to face the consequences.

The Colonel better get used to the idea of spending the next decade or so living in lovely Ft. Leavenworth, KS, because he's going down hard. I don't know whether he's a political extremist or just doesn't want to do another tour and is using the "birther" argument to shirk his duty, but it doesn't really matter.

He'll be in front of a panel of active duty senior military officers- professionals who take the Military very seriously- all that stuff about honor, duty, and discipline- who will put the good of the service above their own personal political beliefs. Regardless of their political stance, they aren't going to put up with Lakin's bull shit.

I guarantee it.

About all Lakin can hope to do is come up with enough bull shit that they won't give him the max.

 

[lynnf]

This guy is a doctor and a fairly senior officer. I can pretty much guarantee the greatest danger he faced in Afghanistan is 1) paper cuts or 2) if a surgeon, cutting himself. Note that the "bronze star" if often awarded for just showing up and doing your job- as there is no "valour" device on his award, we can conclude that he showed up for work on time and did his job. Don't try to bull shit us into believing this guy is Rambo- you sure won't bull shit those of us who have served.



Fuck me, when did they move Ft. Meade to Virginia? I'm sure the folks at new American aren't dip shits, so I must assume that they picked up the entire post and moved it to Virginia from Maryland since I served there. Must have been quite a project...



Retired military officer. He retired almost 2 decades ago from the Air Force. He's been a Fox News "analyst" since then.

Okay, folks, here's the rules on refusing to obey orders. You can refuse to follow an unlawful order in the heat of battle if it's against the Geneva convention or the rules of war- in other words, if following the order would be a war crime. For example, if your commanding officer tells you to light up a school full of children, you can refuse that order and you will be upheld.

However, you can not refuse to obey your superiors over your belief that in a political technicality. If that were the case, there would be anarchy in the military- any dip shit that didn't want to go on patrol would make up some bull shit excuse- "Captain, I'm not going on patrol until you prove to me that President Bush/Obama/Nixon/whatever was born in the USA" or "Captain, I'm not going to charge up that hill because President Bush/Obama/Nixon/whatever violated the Constitution when he signed a bill that I believe is unConstitutional" or "Captain, I refuse to fire on the enemy because I believe the war in Iraq is un Constitutional"- are you fucking kidding me?

Yes, you can refuse to follow orders over some "question" you may have, but you'd better be damned well prepared to face the consequences.

The Colonel better get used to the idea of spending the next decade or so living in lovely Ft. Leavenworth, KS, because he's going down hard. I don't know whether he's a political extremist or just doesn't want to do another tour and is using the "birther" argument to shirk his duty, but it doesn't really matter.

He'll be in front of a panel of active duty senior military officers- professionals who take the Military very seriously- all that stuff about honor, duty, and discipline- and regardless of their political stance, they aren't going to put up with his bull shit. I guarantee it.

Retired military officer. He retired almost 2 decades ago from the Air Force. He's been a Fox News "analyst" since then.


gee, does that mean he isn't/wasn't a general?

 

[libertarian4321]

Retired military officer. He retired almost 2 decades ago from the Air Force. He's been a Fox News "analyst" since then.


gee, does that mean he isn't/wasn't a general?

No, it means he's been out of the military a LONG time.

There's a big difference between someone who is currently serving and some cranky old septuagenarian who's been retired for decades.

 

[libertarian4321]

BTW, as a military officer, if I was sitting on the court and someone came up with some bull shit excuse to avoid doing his duty- e.g. any of the examples I gave above, I'd nail him, no matter what I thought of the underlying politics, and I was hardly a hard ass by military standards- the guys Lakin faces will be.

That is why it is essential that WE, the people, control the actions of our politicians when it comes to war- it isn't up to the young soldier to question every order.

 

[lynnf]

No, it means he's been out of the military a LONG time.

There's a big difference between someone who is currently serving and some cranky old septuagenarian who's been retired for decades.

you're right, there is --- he hasn't been brainwashed into the new scheme of things and he doesn't have to kowtow to current brass to keep his career going so he can tell it like it is!

lynn