web analytics
≡ Menu

Mr. Gingrich your mask is slipping. Again!

In my current WND column I point out that the “juxtaposition of apparently principled lip-service with statements and positions that openly contradict it has become characteristic of the GOP’s current campaign season.” Over the past two years I have observed this pattern of self-contradiction in several GOP leaders being touted as “principled conservatives”- from Sarah Palin, to Ron Paul and some of his supporters, to Herman Cain. In the column I raise the possibility that this “is a deliberate ploy by the GOP elites:

Paying clever lip-service to principle attracts a constituency for the sham two-party system that includes many people loyal to the Declaration’s ideas. Once they jump on a party’s bandwagon, false pride leads more than a few to cling stubbornly to their choice, no matter what. If and when the GOP nominee wins office, such people w ll be reluctant to recognize and react against actions and decisions that betray the views they mistakenly believe the party espouses, especially when the record will show that the nominee’s statements during the primary campaign foreshadowed the betrayals, (in which case voters who admit their error will also be admitting that they were careless or inattentive before casting their vote).

In the GOP race at the moment, as Herman Cain stumbles off the course, the touts and modern oracles (pollsters) begin harping on the latest “fad” in conservative lip-service, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Coming up on the inside(r) track, he seems poised to take a commanding lead over the rest of the field. But the head rush associated with suddenly breaking into the lead affected his stride a bit, leading him to show a flash of his true form at this too early turn, before the race is in the bag.

Thus Jake Tapper of ABC News reports an interview with the headline “Gingrich breaks from some in anti-abortion community on when [human] life begins.” Tapper asks the question “When do you think human life begins?” Their reported exchange then goes on in this way:

GINGRICH: Well, I think the question of being implanted is a very big question. My friends who have ideological positions that sound good don’t then follow through the logic of: ‘So how many additional potential lives are they talking about? What are they going to do as a practical matter to make this real?’

I think that if you take a position when a woman has fertilized egg and that’s been successfully implanted that now you’re dealing with life. Because otherwise you’re going to open up an extraordinary range of very difficult questions

TAPPER: So implantation is the moment for you.

GINGRICH: Implantation and successful implantation. In addition I would say that I’ve never been for embryonic stem cell research per se. I have been for, there are a lot of different ways to get embryonic stem cells. I think if you can get embryonic stem cells for example from placental blood if you can get it in ways that do not involve the loss of a life that’s a perfectly legitimate avenue of approach.

What I reject is the idea that we’re going to take one life for the purpose of doing research for other purposes and I think that crosses a threshold of de-humanizing us that’s very, very dangerous.

Once his head cleared Mr. Gingrich apparently realized that his comments were guaranteed to stir opposition from principled pro-life voters, and not only among people who share his membership in the Roman Catholic Church. His campaign issued a statement vehemently reiterating his belief “that human life begins at conception.” Unfortunately, it’s easier to believe a candidate whose spoken words correct a campaign statement, than a campaign statement offered to correct a candidate’s own words. Christ said “out of the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks.” So when Mr. Gingrich mouthed his criticism of what he called “friends who have ideological positions”, from what place in his heart did his disdain for their ideology overflow?

Though the leftist abuse of the term has given it a bad name, the term “ideology” simply refers to an account of the ideas that form the basis of a human endeavor or institution. The capacity to give such an account is one of the distinctive hallmarks of human intelligence. Anyone sincerely committed to the perpetuation of constitutional self-government in the United States should be especially aware of the importance of ideology in this sense. The independent existence of the United States began with just such an account of ideas: the self-evident truths and unalienable rights America’s founders held to be the basis of just government.

Of all the candidates on the GOP stage, a professor of American history such as Newt Gingrich is the one we’d least expect to speak without regard for this fact. That’s especially true when he is speaking about the issue (respect for the unalienable human right to life) that in our day most explicitly raises the question of the nation’s adherence to those Declaration principles. Mr. Gingrich is well aware of the fact that the American revolutionaries who promulgated the Declaration looked to the Creator as the origin and source of human life, and to “the laws of nature and of Nature’s God” as the source of each individual’s unalienable right to life. Yet in his answer to the question “When does life begin?” he makes no reference to God’s creation. He speaks as if the issue of the beginning of human life is simply a matter of human opinion; what Newt Gingrich, or Alan Keyes, or any other merely human being thinks about it.

Mr. Gingrich treats the issue of respect for life as if it is simply a matter of personal opinion. In such merely human contentions, the strongest opinion (which usually means the opinion of the strongest) is most likely to rule. If the contest comes to blows, this means military strength. Or it may mean wealth, or the force of greater numbers. If, however, the right and wrong of it depends on a will that transcends human power (which is what the Declaration of Independence declares), then a right judgment about when life begins cannot be made without reference to that will.

The Declaration of Independence articulates the idea of justice that is the basis of the identity of the American nation, and of the Constitution adopted to govern it. According to that idea of justice (of right and wrong) the beginning of human life has been determined by the Creator. Its moment of origin depends, therefore, on the Creator’s intelligence; on the workings of His mind. But created things are the consequence of that work; they follow from it, somewhat the way human actions follow from the workings of our minds.

The moment when life is present is therefore God’s decision. It does not depend on our will and decision, but on His. As we cannot claim to be privy to all the workings of God’s mind, we cannot claim to know with certainty how or when His decision is made. In that respect life is like a manuscript prepared in secret, which we can read only after it is published in a form accessible to our understanding. As human beings come more and more to decode and understanding the language in which it is conveyed, we can better ascertain which is the first page; the first sentence; the first word of that publication.

There was no doubt a time when human comprehension of life’s beginning went no further than the moment of the child’s emergence into the world at birth. But today’s scientific techniques allow us to read signs once invisible to our mind’s eye. We can make out the male and female information that combine into one expression of humanity at the very moment of physical conception.

In light of this greater understanding, and contrary to Mr. Gingrich’s assertion to Jake Tapper, the Declaration’s account of the source of human life leaves no “extraordinary range of very difficult questions.” At the moment of physical conception God’s manuscript is already done, His program for each human being complete. Faced with a fact of undeniable human nature, justice demands that we respect the right as God has determined it. We have no more leeway to disregard this right in others, because of our opinion of their physical condition, than others have on that same account to disregard it in us. This is the first fruit of what it means to say we are all “created equal.”

Given his academic background, I find it hard to believe that Mr. Gingrich has never considered this reasoning. Rather his supercilious contempt for “ideological positions” suggests that he has considered and rejected it, as have other elements of the GOP elite, who use the term “ideological” as disparaging code word for anyone who seriously applies the nation’s God acknowledging founding principles.

All this leaves the question unanswered: From whence came the unprincipled words Gingrich spoke to Jake Tapper? In this regard I cannot help thinking about a lesson I learned in 2006 whilein Missouri helping with the campaign against the constitutional amendment that committed the people of Missouri to support stem cell research that requires the destruction of human embryos. Research using stem cells harvested without harm to human life (such as placental stem cells, or those obtained from umbilical cord blood which, in the Tapper interview, Mr. Gingrich mistakenly identifies as embryonic stem cells) has been the source of the therapies that are actually working to improve health. Why insist on approaches that involve destroying human life? Is this the result of some devilish strategy to extend the constituency of the culture of death beyond the abortion industry and its victims? Is it meant to make sure that no assertions of proprietary right (involving personal ownership of adult stem cells) interfere with the lucrative profits liable to be reaped from large scale deployment of successful stem cell based therapies?

My experience in government and politics over the past thirty years makes it impossible for me to ignore the fact that those most likely to reject “ideological positions” have ears to which money speaks with a voice so loud that its din drowns out reason and principle. I’m hard pressed to understand why people who truly wish to preserve America’s constitutional republic are tempted to back leaders deafened by money’s din, especially at a time when the income and credit of the America people and their posterity are being systematically looted and abused by the money powers responsible for the ruckus. Instead, our nation’s plight desperately calls for leaders who respect the rights of property that sustain free enterprise precisely because they listen instead to the voice of principle; the voice that also warns them to remember that true prosperity is endangered, not restored, by government leaders and policies that pretend to achieve it at the expense of God endowed right.

Some may be willing to trust that Newt Gingrich listens to that voice. I understand why they desperately want it to be so. But behind a mask of conservative lip-service, Mr. Gingrich has shown time and again that, much like Mitt Romney or John McCain, he’s a rewarded and willing servant of the elitist faction that is working to tear down America’s constitutional republic. I earnestly pray that at some point the scales will fall from the eyes of the goodhearted but pitiable patriots who still think that Mr. Gingrich, or any of the touted GOP politicos, really mean to restore the party’s allegiance to Declaration principles. In Mr. Gingrich’s interview with Jake Tapper the GOP mask of conservative principle slipped again, as it has already done more than once too often, on more than one too many of the GOP’s supposedly conservative politicians. Tragically for America, the face we glimpse behind the mask is, like Barack Obama’s, turned towards a path that leads the nation away from God, and right, and liberty. Doubtless we will again be told we get no choice but to follow that path. If so, we will just have to show them that we are still Americans: trail blazers born to a heritage that gives us the courage to do whatever we must to prove them wrong.

Series Navigation

NY 23- Orgy of self-seeking reveals GOP void of statesmanshipThe GOP’s More Dangerous Poison

{ 10 comments… add one }
  • Eddie Reynolds June 27, 2010, 11:46 pm

    After reading every word in this discussion, and without my input until now. I must say the legal arguments are fascinating and they work well in a Perry Mason show, but we are actually talking about a man and his country. The man could be ruined for life over this simply because the illegal alien in the white house is above the law and no less the Constitution. Not being an expert at law I will submit to you that none of this discussion need be. The REAL culprit in this case is NOT Col. Larkin, rather it is the person in the white house. If you wish to convict someone for wrong doing , put obama on trial. They ran a birth certificate check on Sen. John McCain to prove his eligibility, why not obama too ? He’s the one thumbing his nose at the Constitution. Without that one fact being addressed , the blame in all of this falls on innocent shoulders, Col. Larkin. One man with courage is a majority. It would seem to me that the so called vindicators of liberty sitting in their comfortable Washington offices could bring themselves to grow some gonads and stand up to the dictator and force him to submit to the same laws as Col. Larkin then and only then will the remnants of liberty be salvaged. Otherwise what you have in the white house is a 21st century Hitler. At a lofty height where no law can go. I love my country and I am so sad to see it being torn into little pieces. I don’t trust ANY politician anymore. We, the American people, have been betrayed. Trust is like a mirror. If it gets broken it can be repaired, but the image is never the same.

  • Atticus Tiberius Finch June 25, 2010, 12:26 am

    When Lt Col Lakin failed to obey an order by his superior officers then Uniform Code of Military Justice will be applicable. The Article which governs failure to obey order or regulation is Article 92 which provides:.

    ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION Any person subject to this chapter who–(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation; (2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or (3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

    The government needs to show the following elements to meet its burden of proof that Lt Col Lakin violated Article 92:
    (1) Violation of or failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation.
    (a) That there was in effect a certain lawful general order or regulation;
    (b) That the accused had a duty to obey it; and
    (c) That the accused violated or failed to obey the order or regulation.
    (2) Failure to obey other lawful order.
    (a) That a member of the armed forces issued a certain lawful order;
    (b) That the accused had knowledge of the order;
    (c) That the accused had a duty to obey the order; and
    (d) That the accused failed to obey the order. Manual for Court Martial United States, page IV-23 (2008 Edition) http://www.uscg.mi l/legal/mj/MJ_Doc/ mcm2008.pdf

    As such, the government only needs to show that Lt Col Lakin violated an order, that the order was lawful, that Lt Col Lakin had a duty to obey the order and that Lt Col Lakin failed to the order.

    If Lt Col Lakin wants to show that the order was unlawful then he
    has the burden of overcoming the presumption of lawfulness of the order. United States v. Hughely 46 M.J. 154 (1997). However, the order to deploy soldiers is a nonjusticiable political question. United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95, 109.(2001). Moreover, the accused may not excuse his disobedience of an order to proceed to foreign duty on the ground that it does not conform to his notions of legality. United States v. Johnson, 17 U.S.C.M.A 246 (1967).

    Since motive is not an element of the offense under Article 92 then his beliefs about the lawfulness of the order is irrelevant on the merits. See United States v. Huet-Vaugh, 43 M.J. 105 (1995)(violation of Article 87 “missing movement”)

    Moreover, since the issue of lawfulness of an order is to be decided by the military judge presiding a court martial, the military jury in the court martial who is the trier of the facts will not heard LTC Lakin’s explanation and/or motives as to why he violated the order. See United States v. New, 448 F.3d 403 (D.C. Cir. 2008)(accused court martial for failing to follow order in wearing United Nations insignia — a shoulder patch and a field cap — to his basic uniform)

    As such, LTC Lakin’s beliefs as to the illegitimacy of Obama’s presidency as a defense to his disobedience to an military order is irrelevant since his belief is not an element of the offense he is charged. United States v. Huet-Vaughn, 43 M.J. 105 (1995)

    • loyaltoliberty June 25, 2010, 3:50 am

      See my previous reply. The lawfulness of the deployment order is not questioned as to its content. Where the credentials of the issuing authority are in doubt, verifying those credentials simply involves investigating a matter of fact. If a military judge or any other tribunal or jury decides a matter of fact without examining the facts, what they do is not a trial, but a travesty.
      By the way, Col. Lakin does not appear to question the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency as a matter of philosophy, politics or ideology, etc. When I was serving as an Ambassador at the UN the guards at the entrance to the State Department building required that I show my credentials every time I entered it. They were not questioning the legitimacy of my Ambassadorship, they were simply making sure that I was who I purported to be. Where the Presidency is concerned, this is not just a question of the identity of a particular individual. It has to do with the integrity of the constitution’s vestment of power in that individual. By its terms, no such vestment takes place unless the person is of age (35 years) and a natural born citizen. If, on examination of the facts, the vestment of power is shown to be constitutionally impermissible then the individual is not and never was who he claims to be (President, Commander in Chief). In that case no orders or other actions dependent on his authority could ever have the authority of law. (Whoever claims that they could would have to show the authority, higher and other than the constitution that is the source of that lawfulness, i.e., they would have to appeal to an extra-constitutional authority, on which they rely instead of the Constitution. Such reliance would literally involve abrogating the Constitution. But all U.S. civilian and military officers are sworn to uphold it. In what sense is an order that requires military personnel to abrogate the Constitution (the Supreme Law of the land) a lawful order? Only in a sense that puts a new order, a new form of government, in place of the Constitutional one. That’s a revolutionary order that it is surely not acceptable for the U.S. military to carry out. Col. Lakin raises a simple question of fact. Those trying to justify their refusal to address it are the ones using arguments that raise the mother of all political questions.)

  • Atticus Tiberius Finch June 25, 2010, 12:24 am

    LTC Lakin’s attempts to challenge Obama’s orders will fail under the political question doctrine.

    The judge in LTC Lakin’s court martial will not allow the defendant to go on a fishing expedition through discovery to find out if Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president. The judge will denied his request as being immaterial and irrelevant to his violation of Article 92 (FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION) and furthermore, the judge will ruled as a matter of law that the deployment order was lawful. See Manual of Court Martial (2008 Edition) Paragraph 14 (2)(a) page IV-19

    Upon his conviction for violating Article 92 and after exhausting his administrative remedies in the military court system, LTC Lakin will file a petition
    for Habeas Corpus in the federal district court arguing that court martial judge violated his Fifth Amendment rights in refusing to permit him to discover whether or not Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president .

    The federal district court will affirm LTC Lakin’s conviction and following established Supreme Court precedent in Baker v. Carr (Political Question doctrine) it will also hold that LTC Lakin’s discovery of Obama’s eligibility is barred by the Political Question doctrine.

    The federal district court will rely on the language in the United States v. New, 448 F.3d 403 (D.C. Cir. 2006) decision in which the New court observed:

    “[N]othing gives a soldier “authority for a self-help remedy of disobedience.” 55 M.J. at 108 (quoting United States v. Johnson, 45 M.J. 88, 92 (C.A.A.F.1996)). Two of the canonical factors from Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), “an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made,” 369 U.S. at 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, and “the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question,” id., are uniquely powerful when the context is a soldier’s use of the “self-help remedy of disobedience.” Also supporting a broader sweep to the political question doctrine in military trials is the point made by Judge Effron in his concurring opinion — that the doctrine “ensur[es] that courts-martial do not become a vehicle for altering the traditional relationship between the armed forces and the civilian policymaking branches of government” by adjudicating the legality of political decisions. Id. at 110. Thus we find no defect in the Court of Appeals’ application of the political question doctrine, even though that application might be highly contestable in another context. Compare Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19, 24-28 (D.C.Cir.2000) (Silberman, J., concurring) (finding that no “judicially discoverable and manageable standards” exist for application of the Constitution’s war powers clause or the War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. § 1541 et seq.), with id. at 37-41 (Tatel, J., concurring) (concluding that such standards do exist). Given the threat to military discipline, we have no difficulty accepting the military courts’ reliance on the doctrine. Id.

    As such, the judge of LTC Lakin’s court martial will ruled as a matter of law that the deployment orders were lawful and under the Political Question doctrine, LTC Lakin’s attempts to disprove Obama’s eligibility is immaterial and irrelevant.

    • loyaltoliberty June 25, 2010, 2:54 am

      Colonel Lakin’s defense depends upon matters of fact and requirements plainly stated in the U.S. Constitution, which is Supreme law of the land. These matter do not per se involve any political judgment or decision. The possibility that the establishment of those facts has this or that political consequence does not make the decision about them a political question. (For example, the decision to bind the participants in the infamous Watergate burglary over for trial, and the investigation of the facts required to do so, had enormous political consequences, reaching to the very highest level of the U.S. government. That in no way made a judicial determination of those matters a political question.) In fact, judicial integrity requires that such extraneous political considerations be set aside. Once the facts (Obama’s age and circumstances of birth) are established, the question of whether an issue exists as to his eligibility is immediately clarified by those facts. If an issue exists then Col. Lakin can justify his action on the basis of the substantial and conscientious risk that obedience to the order violates his sworn duty to the constitution, which he is morally obliged to fulfill. Obeying the order of a constitutionally unauthorized person strikes a mortal blow against the existence of the constitutional sovereign just as plainly as firing a weapon into a ditch filled with unarmed civilians strikes a mortal blow against their lives.
      No question of fact bearing on the lawfulness of the armband order was at the root of Michael New’s actions. Col. Lakin is not saying that the contents of the order he has received are somehow unconstitutional- rather he is taking note of the fact that substantial doubt exists as to whether the person on whom the authority of the order depends is who he purports to be. (An otherwise lawful order coming from someone pretending to hold a certain position or rank but not actually entitled to do so is not a lawful order. If in the ordinary course of things an officer in the military encounters substantial reason to doubt that the person issuing an order is factually who he or she claims to be, common sense dictates that anyone would recognize as such require that, in a prudent effort to maintain the actual integrity of the chain of command, the officer suspend his execution of the order until the claim is verified. (Just as ships sometimes fly false flags, people have been know to wear false uniforms or make use of false credentials.) This is especially true if, in and of itself, the acceptance of a false claim of authority involves a substantial risk that the officer will harm or destroy what he and the military as a whole exist, and are sworn, to defend. In this case, obeying the false authority involves an assault on the real one, i.e., on the Constitution itself.
      In such a situation of possible imposture the officer would of course be obliged to take every possible step to verify the real facts so that one way or another the lawfulness of the order is clarified. Anyone at a guard post might encounter such a situation. The major difference in this case is that the individual with questionable credentials happens to claim the position of Commander in Chief (on whose authority that of the whole chain of command ultimately depends), and the credentials required are not mandated by some routine regulation, but by the Supreme Law of the land. Col. Lakin does not claim to be in a position to ascertain the facts needed for a resolution. Nor does his suspension of execution involve any “self-help” disobedience. He is simply asking that those in a position to ascertain the required facts do their duty so that he and all other members of the military may in good conscience proceed with theirs.
      The tragedy in all this is that the question involved is of such magnitude that, without meaning to do so, America’s military leaders could end up cooperating in the overthrow of the constitution they are sworn to uphold simply because they refused to demand that the civilian authorities they are duty bound to respect follow the orders of the Constitution, as both military and civilian officers are sworn to do.

  • IONU June 19, 2010, 9:48 am

    I. Until I looked it up, I mistakenly thought court martials were like military tribunals and could not be appealed. Note the last paragraph of this quote. Is there hope after all that the Lakin case could make a difference by getting to SCOTUS through appeal? Very far-fetched, but apparently possible. Hopefully, my worst fears are unfounded and this court martial will not be a kangaroo court.


    “Greater convictions [more than 6 months confinement] are automatically appealed to a court of military review, which considers matters of fact and law. Consisting largely of higher-ranking military judges, these courts exist for each branch of the military and have a total of 31 appellate military judges. The Uniform Code of Military Justice requires them to review serious sentences such as confinement of one year or more, dishonorable discharge, or dismissal of officers or cadets. Sentences to general officers and flag officers are also reviewed automatically. In all cases, defendants are granted free counsel for their appeals.

    At the next level, the Court of Military Appeals—composed of five civilian judges who are appointed by the president of the United States—may decide to hear any petition from an unsuccessful appeal to a court of military review.

    Finally, once military remedies have been exhausted, federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, will review a court-martial conviction for claims of denial of constitutional rights.”

    II. Here’s a comment from “Alec” on Repubx.com regarding LTC Lakin’s case:

    I noticed a profound difference between the officer’s oath and the enlisted oath. This difference is significant in regard to the Army’s stated position that LTC Lakin takes orders from his immediate superiors and not directly from the (usurper) “president.” Here are the two oaths to compare:

    U.S. Military Oaths:
    The Commissioning Oath

    “I, _____ , having been appointed an officer in the (Service) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear that 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

    The Enlistment Oath

    “I, _____, do solemnly swear 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.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

    You will note that the enlistment oath requires to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me…” The officer’s oath makes no such affirmation. The difference is by design. An officer’s SOLE obligation is to support and defend the Constitution, which is EXACTLY what LTC Lakin is doing. If he were an enlisted man, then the Army might have a case, but the differences in the oaths are not by accident.
    < < | < | > | >> | Reply | Quote


    If this is accurate, it would be hard for any attorney to botch this case, just let the truth speak for itself. The Lakin case is of monumental importance. All the previous cases were dismissed for bogus reasons, such as lack of standing, but if this trial is given enough exposure it will be more difficult for the socialist regime to fool the American public.

    • Tom Lawson June 19, 2010, 1:17 pm

      Nice reply Alec, well written and to the point. Thanks.

  • Chester June 18, 2010, 5:33 pm

    This military court is part of the Executive Branch. The president controls this court because it is part of the Executive Branch, not part of the (theoretically) independent Judicial Branch.

    So the situation is analogous to a situation where the plaintiff and the judge are controlled by the same entity. So there is an inescapable conflict of interest. If not the president’s eligibility were in question but some generals’ wrongdoing, this conflict would not exist, because the general has no control over the executive branch and the military court.

    What do you think? Is there a conflict of interest? And if there is one, can the defense use that to their advantage?

    Also, what is the path of appeal from this court, if any?

    Can the defense, on appeal, transfer the case to a court under the Judicial Branch? In that event, the new court would have difficulty blocking it with the Standing Doctrine, as the defendant will have suffered particular and personal injury.

  • Jan Verger June 17, 2010, 11:12 am

    The point here is most important of all. Suppose that an officer commanding troops in Afghanistan decides that the ROE are nefarious thus putting his troops in jeopardy and decides to issue orders countermanding those ROE. That CO gets brought up on charges for disregarding those ROE which put his troops in jeopardy, he now has to defend his actions in the same manner as LTC Lakin stating that the ROE are in themselves unlawful because of the issue here before us.

    If I were to become the next POTUS, the eligibility investigation would commence immediately. All high command officers would be brought up on charges of dereliction of duty in regards to their oath to constitution. Resignation wouldn’t be allowed because they would just get their pension thus trial will be the only option

  • I.B. Wright June 17, 2010, 10:45 am

    Obama had the choice to court marshall lakin or re-assign him like he did to the other person that questioned him.

    Before he chose which path to take, I think we all knew that he would never select the court marshall path unless the fix was in and he was guaranteed there would be no discovery. Otherwise, he never would have had lakin court marshalled.

    So it’s great to be outraged by this terrible injustice, but there’s no reason to be surprised.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Copyright Regulations

All original material on Loyal To Liberty is copyrighted and you will need to observe these regulations when you plan to distribute or use content from this blog. Copyright Regulations for Content on Loyal To Liberty You are free to share, distribute or transmit any work on this blog under the following conditions: * Attribution: You must attribute any content you use to Loyal To Liberty by including a link back to the specific content page. You must not suggest that Loyal To Liberty endorses you or your use of the content on this blog. Even with attribution, you do not have permission to republish the entire blog post on a website. Only excerpts of less than 500 words from each blog post may be published on other websites. A link back to the specific blog post must be included. * Noncommercial Usage: You may not use this work for commercial purposes unless authorized to do so by Alan Keyes. * Derivative Works:Within the limits heretofore specified, you may build upon the contents of Loyal To Liberty as long as proper attribution (see above) is made. If you want to syndicate or distribute the full blog post on your website, permission must be obtained before you do so. For permission, please email alan@loyaltoliberty.com.
%d bloggers like this: