Removing One More Brick From Obama’s Legacy

[Flanders]

Every violent criminal, every child-molesting teacher or priest, gets a fairer shake than Terry Lakin ever got.​

Vengeance is mine saith —— ?​

Maybe Commander in Chief Trump will correct one of Obama’s injustices:

President Donald Trump is being asked to exercise his authority as commander-in-chief and reinstate the pay and benefits of an Army doctor who was kicked out of the service after nearly 20 years for doing the same thing the president had done before he was a candidate, ask questions about President Obama’s birth certificate.​

Petition: Reinstate Army officer who questioned Obama birth doc
Posted By Jack Minor On 01/28/2017 @ 10:31 pm

Petition: Reinstate Army officer who questioned Obama birth doc​

 

[S.J.]

He probably will.

 

[Flanders]

He probably will.

To S.J. Considering the people the Chicago sewer rat pardoned Trump would be a fool not to.

 

[DrainBamage]

This guy didn't get a court martial for questioning a birth certificate, he got one for failing to appear for duty since he refused to deploy to Afghanistan based on his beliefs about the birth certificate.

No military can function if the individuals in it are allowed to decide whether to follow valid and legal orders issued by their commanders based on their political beliefs about the POTUS. This action doesn't need correction, if someone refuses to deploy they are committing dereliction of duty and need to be kicked the hell out. Who suffers when he does this? Others in his unit.

Same goes if someone refused to deploy tomorrow claiming Russia influenced the election so Trump isn't really President. Court martial them, confine them, and kick them out. The separation of politics an military, demonstrated by the peaceful transition of executive power this nation has enjoyed for well over 200 years, is critical in how our government and military function together. There is no place for junior officers refusing legal orders based on politics, no matter what side of the political aisle holds office.

 

[Flanders]

No military can function if the individuals in it are allowed to decide whether to follow valid and legal orders issued by their commanders based on their political beliefs about the POTUS.

To DrainBramage: Military personnel are NOT required to obey UNLAWFUL orders. Indeed, they can be punished severely if they obey an unlawful order. The government generally covers up such cases. In Colonel Lakin’s case they made an example of him for political reasons when Col. Lakin was not allowed to introduce birth certificate evidence. The UCMJ says this:

935. ART. 135. COURTS OF INQUIRY

c Any person subject to this chapter whose conduct is subject to inquiry shall be designated as a party. Any person subject to this chapter or employed by the Department of Defense who has a direct interest in the subject of inquiry has the right to be designated as a party upon request to the court. Any person designated as a party shall be given due notice and has the right to be present, to be represented by counsel, to cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence.

(f) Witnesses may be summoned to appear and testify and be examined before courts of inquiry, as provided for courts-martial.​

​

In short: The UCMJ means exactly what the government wants it to mean.

Lt. Col. Lakin (M.D.- Active Army) – first asked the Army to affirm that Obama was constitutionally eligible to serve as President, and when his chain of command refused, he then refused to deploy to Afghanistan until “eligibility” was established (to force the issue to a head). Lakin’s argument is simple and direct: a soldier must not be compelled to obey an “unlawful order”; an “ineligible person” cannot serve as President and Commander-in-Chief and, thus, cannot issue “lawful orders.” He has thereby laid his liberty and whole career on the line in order to honor his Oath to Support and Defend the Constitution (especially Article II, Section 1, Clause 5), which must not be violated!

In preparation for his court martial, scheduled for October, his defense counsel asked the Judge Advocate General (JAG) court to authorize “discovery” of Obama’s birth records in order to prove Lakin’s innocence. Col. Lind, Presiding JAG Judge, has recently ruled that LTC Lakin can’t depose (question under oath) the Hawaiian Custodian of Birth Records, nor view any of their documents. The judge claimed that birth records might contain “embarrassing information” about the putative President. The judge further ruled that it is “irrelevant” for the military to prove that Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief. She said that LTC Lakin’s deployment orders came from the Pentagon and, “on its face,” that’s all he needs to know. In other words, along with her Commanding General, Col. Lind has just decided that the chain of command originates at the Pentagon, and the President is NOT an integral part of it. Both Lind and her commanding general have now violated the Constitution’s clear specification that the “President is the Commander-in-Chief.​

JAGs protecting Obama have committed treason
By Sharon Rondeau on Thursday, September 23, 2010

JAGs protecting Obama have committed treason – The Post & Email​

There is no place for junior officers refusing legal orders based on politics, no matter what side of the political aisle holds office.

To DrainBramage: Incidentally, the government’s prosecution and conviction of Michael New was purely political. He was punished by the Clintons for refusing to serve the United Nations. Nothing the Clintons did to the US military was reversed by Bush or Obama. President Trump makes a lot of noise about America First. He can prove it by defending this country against the United Nations with a full pardon for Michael New an enlisted man.

For years, I’ve posted messages about the raw deal Micheal New got. The travesty in New’s conviction was compounded because he was loyal to the United States while Obama gave pardons to traitors.

Please read the articles if you are not familiar with Michael New’s story:

"No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other."

So what master do U.S. servicemen serve: the U.S. Constitution or the United Nations Charter?​

Phyllis Schlafly
What Master Do U.S. Servicemen Serve?
Nov. 2, 1995

What Master Do U.S. Servicemen Serve? - Phyllis Schlafly Column 11/02/95​

XXXXX​

What if New was right all along, and the order to don the U.N. emblems was unlawful, as he argued throughout his dispute with his commanding officers at his court-martial and throughout the appeals process?

It would mean that prosecutors in the Clinton administration withheld exculpatory evidence, deceived a judge in the case and misled defense counsel to stamp out what could have been a rebellion against illegal orders to serve under the banner of the international political group.​

U.S. soldiers forced to wear U.N. logo?
Appeal explains Clinton's secret executive order
Published: 05/20/2012 at 6:57 PM
by BOB UNRUH

U.S. soldiers forced to wear U.N. logo?​

 

[DrainBamage]

To DrainBramage: Military personnel are NOT required to obey UNLAWFUL orders.

An order to shoot women and children civilians is an example of an unlawful order.

An order by his commander to deploy to Afghanistan is a lawful order. That is what he disobeyed. There is no precedent that his commander provide proof of the POTUS birth certificate for an order to be lawful, and no military can function if anyone can refuse orders based on their belief of such.

I can't believe people are sympathizing with someone who disobeyed orders, and am genuinely curious if they'd feel the same if someone refused orders to deploy unless someone proved the election wasn't influenced by the Russians. The burden of satisfying proof requirements for any conspiracy theory someone in the military dreams up does not lay on their commanders, nor does that invalidate the lawfulness of an order.

 

[Flanders]

An order to shoot women and children civilians is an example of an unlawful order.

To DrainBramage: Nice misdirection. So is an order to serve the United Nations unlawful in violation of the Constitution not to mention the oaths military personnel swear:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

XXXXX​

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; 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 on which I am about to enter. So help me God.​

NOTE: If it was up to me I would dishonorably discharge every officer that had a hand in Terry Lakin’s, and Micheal New’s, trials and convictions because such officers violated their oaths of service. Also note that President Trump surrounds himself with generals; so he can start by reminding high-ranking officers still in uniform of their oath.

An order by his commander to deploy to Afghanistan is a lawful order. That is what he disobeyed. There is no precedent that his commander provide proof of the POTUS birth certificate for an order to be lawful, and no military can function if anyone can refuse orders based on their belief of such.

To DrainBramage: Work on your priorities.

a soldier must not be compelled to obey an “unlawful order”; an “ineligible person” cannot serve as President and Commander-in-Chief and, thus, cannot issue “lawful orders.”

I can't believe people are sympathizing with someone who disobeyed orders,

To DrainBramage: Now you are trying to be clever. In the cases I cited, Lakin and New involved violations of the Constitution.

and am genuinely curious if they'd feel the same if someone refused orders to deploy unless someone proved the election wasn't influenced by the Russians. The burden of satisfying proof requirements for any conspiracy theory someone in the military dreams up does not lay on their commanders, nor does that invalidate the lawfulness of an order.

To DrainBramage: At least wait until after somebody is court martialed for defending a Democrat talking point before you make your case by changing the topic.

Incidentally, for years I’ve been saying that the Universal Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) should be changed to protect military personnel against being punished when they refuse to serve the United Nations. The commander and chief alone can change the UCMJ so that no enlisted man or woman can be ordered to serve the United Nations in any capacity. At the very least, serving the United Nations should be voluntary without fear of refusing.

That’s not going to happen; so those who are thinking about a career in the military had better realize what they are getting into before they sign up. Do they want to serve this country? or do they want to strengthen an organization that is committed to abolishing America’s independence? That is in addition to doing the dirty work for the New World Order crowd; the very Americans who despise the U.S. Constitution.

Lay my UCMJ suggestion on Democrats and you will see them rushing out to buy guns for a revolution to prevent the change. The joke is that Democrats do not oppose Americans dying for strangers in foreign lands as long as they fight and die for the United Nations.

 

[Flanders]

To DrainBamage: Maybe Jim ONeill can help you out:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.—Preamble to the United States Constitution

As military officers, we owe our ultimate loyalty not to superior officers or even to the president, but rather, to the Constitution.”—Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney (USAF Ret.)

“I think many in the military—and many out of the military—question the natural-birth status of Barack Obama.” —Major General Paul E. Vallely (US Army Ret.)

First off—will Congress and/or SCOTUS please get off their collective butts and clearly, emphatically, and unequivocally define exactly what is meant by “Natural Born” from Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution?

XXXXX​

My motivation stems from my oath of office to defend and uphold the Constitution, it’s the constitution that needs to be upheld.”—LTC Terry Lakin​

President Trump: About Terry Lakin
By Jim ONeill
January 29, 2017

President Trump: About Terry Lakin​

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I took that oath many times. I followed Lawful Orders. And when they sent me to SE 3 times, I didn't like it but I went. I served under 2 Presidents that were the worst in modern history, Ford and Carter. I served under the President that I rate the Highest, Nixon. I served under the in betweens as well. But regardless, I served. We didn't get to make the choice not to serve. We were in the military and chose to serve or not be in the military, period.

We were also told NOT to discuss this with the SillyVillians since it would make the Military look weak. But they NEVER stopped us from discussing with ourselves around the picnic table. We were made up of many political persuasions. We were never told that we had to be one or the other or in between. What we were told was that we obeyed lawful orders to the letter.

If you find that you can't serve under any President, you had the right to resign once you reached a certain rank. Within 72 hours, you would be out the gate. But if you wait until you refuse a lawful order then you are in break of the UCMJ and your oath of enlistment. And you could be court marshal.

You also would be give a choice to accept Administrative Punishment usually with a General or honrable Discharge and your walking papers. You could accept it in lieu of a court marshal. Lakin chose to be court marshaled. It was his choice and He needs to live with the results.

 

[HenryBHough]

In the thread title read "brick" as "turd" and it will make more sense.

 

[DrainBamage]

To DrainBamage: Maybe Jim ONeill can help you out:

No, that doesn't help me out because it doesn't make disobeying a lawful order okay, and it doesn't make an order unlawful because some idiot believes in conspiracy theories about the president.

Bottom line = it was a lawful order.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

To DrainBamage: Maybe Jim ONeill can help you out:

No, that doesn't help me out because it doesn't make disobeying a lawful order okay, and it doesn't make an order unlawful because some idiot believes in conspiracy theories about the president.

Bottom line = it was a lawful order.

I had to throw out my black toaster. It didn't have a birth certificate. The Microwave and blender demanded to see it.