Army to court martial 'birther' officer
From NBC's Jim Miklaszewski and Mark Murray
U.S. military officials tell NBC News that the U.S. Army will court martial a lieutenant colonel who refuses to deploy to Afghanistan because he considers orders from President Obama to be "illegal."
Army doctor Lt. Col. Terry Lakin believes Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements to be president and commander-in-chief, because he believes (incorrectly) that Obama wasn't born in the United States.
Lakin refused this week to report to Fort Campbell, KY for deployment to Afghanistan, but instead showed up at the Pentagon, where he was confronted by his brigade Commander Col. Gordon Roberts, a Vietnam Medal of Honor recipient.
Lakin was informed by Roberts that he would face court martial, and his Pentagon building pass and government laptop computer were seized.
Link
Apparently he is a rather well decorated member of the armed service and not some "off the wall" wingnut. Then again...
Link
Apparently he is a rather well decorated member of the armed service and not some "off the wall" wingnut. Then again...
I'd say that apparently he is BOTH a rather well decorated member of the armed service AND some "off the wall" wingnut.
I'd say that apparently he is BOTH a rather well decorated member of the armed service AND some "off the wall" wingnut.
Yep, there's nothing mutually exclusive about that.
He should be court martialed or discharged. The smartest thing he should have done is resign his Commission. Now they are going to make an example of him. Fool.
fool, indeed, and racist, too. If Obama were whiter than he black, this wouldn't be an issue.
wow - I didn't see that coming Cloud.
...and racist, too....
How did you come to that conclusion?
because I believe that it's only because Obama is black that people are making a fuss about it; grasping at any straw they can think of. If he were a white president, no one would still be doing this kind of stuff. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my personal opinion.
Something of a parallel here:
An RAF doctor who refused to serve in Iraq has been sentenced to eight months in jail and dismissed from the service.
Flt Lt Malcolm Kendall-Smith, 37, was found guilty of five charges of disobeying orders after he refused to go to Basra last June.
He claimed his actions were justified as the UK involvement was illegal.
But a court martial panel agreed with prosecution lawyers that the doctor, based at RAF Kinloss in Scotland, could not "pick and choose" orders he obeyed.
Dr Kendall-Smith will serve half of his sentence in a civilian prison and the remainder on licence.
He was also ordered to pay £20,000 in costs.
BBC: Jail for Iraq refusal RAF doctor.gee, what is it with the army doctors? are they all nutcases, or what?
and what happened to the Ft. Hood shooter? Is he still languishing in an iron lung somewhere? (goes off to google)
because I believe that it's only because Obama is black that people are making a fuss about it; grasping at any straw they can think of. If he were a white president, no one would still be doing this kind of stuff. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my personal opinion.
I certainly respect your opinion. But that is the new mantra of the left-wing nuts, anyone who disagrees with Obama is now called a racist. I think that is a huge mistake and is only stated to stifle anyone who disagrees with his policies.
well, that's a good point. But the extreme obstructionism of these people does not, frankly, make sense to me otherwise.
gee, what is it with the army doctors? are they all nutcases, or what?
Pretty broad brush there...
and what happened to the Ft. Hood shooter? Is he still languishing in an iron lung somewhere? (goes off to google)
He is in a wheelchair I believe, and in jail just outside of Ft. Hood.
well, that's a good point. But the extreme obstructionism of these people does not, frankly, make sense to me otherwise.
Because they are Constitutional nutcases, not because they are racists. Oh, and they listen to G. Gordon Liddy and Rush on right-wing radio.
if they so believe in the Constitution, why don't they believe in the Supreme Court who enforces it (and who verified Obama's birth certificate and eligibility?)
These people are not expressing discontent with Obama's policies, which would be fine; they are against him, personally, against the evidence. It's like they can't believe that this person of mixed heritage represents the good ol USof A to the world.
(shakes head)
How did you come to that conclusion?
I certainly respect your opinion. But that is the new mantra of the left-wing nuts, anyone who disagrees with Obama is now called a racist. I think that is a huge mistake and is only stated to stifle anyone who disagrees with his policies.
How else would you explain that some people are closed-minded when it comes to Obama's citizenship, which has been resolved enough times to satisfy a moron, but closed minded in the opposite way when it came to McCain's citizenship?
It's like they can't believe that this person of mixed heritage represents the good ol USof A to the world.
There is no evidence to support that notion.
How else would you explain that some people are closed-minded when it comes to Obama's citizenship, which has been resolved enough times to satisfy a moron, but closed minded in the opposite way when it came to McCain's citizenship?
Because they are morons, not because they are racist. There is no evidence to support that.
Maybe not, but this is the feeling I get from their rhetoric. I'll have to think on this some more, I guess.
Because they are morons, not because they are racist. There is no evidence to support that.
There's as much evidence that they're racists as there is that they're morons.
okay; maybe they're just very persistent garden-variety nutcases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BirtherI certainly respect your opinion. But that is the new mantra of the left-wing nuts, anyone who disagrees with Obama is now called a racist. I think that is a huge mistake and is only stated to stifle anyone who disagrees with his policies.
Birtherism doesn't involve disagreeing with Obama or his policies. It is the disbelief that the first black PotUS is legitimate.
He's not the first PotUS with an immigrant parent.
and not the first president to be investigated for not being a natural born citizen either, apparently.
Maybe it's just so incomprehensible to me, that I label these people with the worst thing I can think of. That's probably a mistake on my part.
Birtherism doesn't involve disagreeing with Obama or his policies. It is the disbelief that the first black PotUS is legitimate.
He's not the first PotUS with an immigrant parent.
It is not about racism. The lines are blurred by those who wish to discredit anyone who disagrees with Obama. It is false to make it a race issue.
There's as much evidence that they're racists as there is that they're morons.
Prove it.
It is not about racism. The lines are blurred by those who wish to discredit anyone who disagrees with Obama. It is false to make it a race issue.
Like I said, birtherism isn't about disagreeing with Obama. It is about claiming that he's not a legitimate president, based solely on the fact that his father was African.
Like I said, birtherism isn't about disagreeing with Obama. It is about claiming that he's not a legitimate president, based solely on the fact that his father was African.
I don't believe that involves a feeling of racism, that was my only point. I think if his father was from Sweden these people would be making the same claim, regardless of his color. I personally am proud that we have elected a true African American as President. I think it was a huge statement as to who far we have come as a nation. Even if I don't agree with 75% of his policy.
I think if his father was from Sweden these people would be making the same claim, regardless of his color.
I do not. Maybe I don't have any proof, but I still feel that way. Is that a blonde moment? Dunno, but feel free to blame that, if you want.
Because they are morons, not because they are racist. There is no evidence to support that.
Prove it.:zzz:
Prove it.:zzz:
I never made the claim that they were racist. You support it. The burden is on you. But I know you can't.... :lol:
I do not. Maybe I don't have any proof, but I still feel that way. Is that a blonde moment? Dunno, but feel free to blame that, if you want.
I will not blame you for anything. Like I said earlier, I respect your opinion. I only said something because that has become a mantra that Left-wing nuts would wish everyone would adopt. I don't support it. People stand and die on their own merits, regardless of color.
I never made the claim that they were racist. You support it. The burden is on you. But I know you can't.... :lol:
You made the claim that they are not racist. Prove it. The burden is on you. But I know you can't.... :lol:
Duh
You made the claim that they are not racist. Prove it. The burden is on you. But I know you can't.... :lol:
Duh
Fail.
because it was me that made the claim, and Merc called me on it. Maybe it isn't true. Maybe these right wing conspiracy theorist nuts aren't racist.
Maybe.
because it was me that made the claim, and Merc called me on it. Maybe it isn't true. Maybe these right wing conspiracy theorist nuts aren't racist.
Maybe.
Conspiracy Theorists know no bounds in race, religion, or whatever. They are everywhere.
well, that's true. It's the target that's suggestive in this case.
well, that's true. It's the target that's suggestive in this case.
That is because it a convenient arguement IMHO. Too convenient...
Conspiracy Theorists know no bounds in race, religion, or whatever. They are everywhere.
You serious? Because the dumbasses that believe the Jews are taking control of the world are definitely not anti-Semitic...
There are some racists who using the "birther" as an issue to cover up their racism and there are constitutionalists who would complain if they thought George W. Bush was born in Canada. You can't generalize them all as racist or not racist.
The BS stench in this thread is overpowering!
merc, check the bottom of your shoes, for pete's sake.
merc, check the bottom of your shoes, for pete's sake.
Please don't bother on my account. I can tell where BS lives by the smell.
You can't generalize them all as racist or not racist.
My point exactly. But in reality they can't be generalized at all. Racism is a issue injected by those who seek to stifle the voices of those who disagree with Obama. It is a false notion, IMHO.
It's not false, it's just not all encompassing. That said, I've been meeting more and more people with various gripes about Obama, who when questioned further resort to, because he's a damn nigger. I've been really surprised how prevalent it is. ymmv, as PA has more hate groups than any other state.
Pete and I were talking about the dynamic. She thinks this stuff is going on because the right had eight years of everything going their way and they have not gotten comfortable with getting trampled. I'd push it further to say that the right identifies themselves as the only American voice and considering every other opinion to be from the "other." All opinions to the left of extreme right must originate in old Europe. Obama being a black man just fits too nicely into this otherizing world view. I doubt that Panama John McCain would have been the subject of such nonsense...
I heard (alright, half heard, whilst doing other stuff) a programme on the radio last night about the TEA party movement. Listening to a lot of their rhetoric, they did sound as if they believed that Obama and the 'left' were inherently unAmerican and that the 'the People' were themselves. Like they were living under some kind of dictatorship that hadn't been voted in (because they themselves hadn't voted for him).
It's not false, it's just not all encompassing. That said, I've been meeting more and more people with various gripes about Obama, who when questioned further resort to, because he's a damn nigger. I've been really surprised how prevalent it is. ymmv, as PA has more hate groups than any other state.
That is interesting. I don't give those people the time of day. I too have been meeting more and more people with gripes against Obama whom they voted for and the Dems in Congress. I have never heard a racist remark about it but there is a lot of anger out there and they seem to be growing in numbers.
I walked past a tea baggers rally downtown yesterday at lunch. As a result of having just read this thread, I looked over the crowd pretty closely. I didn't see a single face of any color other than white in that entire crowd of maybe 5 thousand. I had a good vantage point on a hill above the crowd. Not sure what that means, but normally you'll see a mixture of faces in any crowd. Not so here.
This guy probably more exemplifies that crowd.
And, couldn't find it on youtube, but here's a hulu clip:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/90671/the-cleveland-show-family-guy-chased-by-ghosts That's interesting, Glatt. There was a t-bag rally in the city park here yesterday, too. If there is one thing you can say about the 4-Corners, its that it is the land of diversity. Sometimes when I go to the laundramat, I'm the only white person in there. Everyone else is Navajo or Hispanic.
But if you looked at the composition of the local t-bag group, it was all white. I know because I was on foot and walked through the middle of the rally. It was bizarre, actually.
That is interesting. I don't give those people the time of day. I too have been meeting more and more people with gripes against Obama whom they voted for and the Dems in Congress. I have never heard a racist remark about it but there is a lot of anger out there and they seem to be growing in numbers.
1. Just because you 'don't give them the time of day' doesn't mean they aren't there.
2. Maybe you just aren't hearing the racist remarks. Given your willingness to edit out the people who are likely to be making them.
You can't walk around small town America without bumping a nut on someone who says Obama is a socialist, anti-american, the *n* word...blah blah blah. I usually hear these things right before the person spits on the sidewalk or adjusts their overalls, or spills beer on their "mustache rides" t-shirt. Dumbasses.
the thing about Obama is he doesn't play by the old-boy network rules. He doesn't necessarily cater to the press or the lobbyists or the collateral lines of power that have been in place for a long time, and that's pissed a bunch of people off. (Makes me happy though). Whether or not the birthers or teapartyists are racist, well--how do you prove a negative? How do you prove hatred?
I certainly do have the impression that many of these people are motivated by racism. Probably Merc was right to call me on it when I called the original birther guy posted about racist, because it's true, I have no proof of that. nothing in the articles I read mentioned a racist motivation. But just because it's "convenient" to attribute a racial motivation to those opposing our president . . . doesn't mean it's not true, at least partially.
1. Just because you 'don't give them the time of day' doesn't mean they aren't there.
2. Maybe you just aren't hearing the racist remarks. Given your willingness to edit out the people who are likely to be making them.
Or they are in such a minority that they really are not a factor. I certainly edit them out, that is true, but if there were really that many their remarks would be all over the internet both in video and quote. So far there has been very few events, other than the one reportedly made at the Capitol, with thousands of video about and no one could catch the supposed comment. Who knows. But it sure has become a convienient dig. To be honest I have only witness 2 such gatherings and it was in passing. Everything else I have watched is on the internet or TV.
I certainly do have the impression that many of these people are motivated by racism. Probably Merc was right to call me on it when I called the original birther guy posted about racist, because it's true, I have no proof of that. nothing in the articles I read mentioned a racist motivation. But just because it's "convenient" to attribute a racial motivation to those opposing our president . . . doesn't mean it's not true, at least partially.
Funny how he noticed that and called you on it...true or not. I guess it's not OK to call people racist just because they don't like our president, but it's OK to call certain politicians nazi whores, among a million other silly names meant to cast aspersions on the "other party."
IMHO (the acronym of the week) those two notions don't jibe. Seems self-serving, to me, and I'm highly amused at the dichotomy.
the thing about Obama is he doesn't play by the old-boy network rules.
I think he has his own "good ole boy network", it just isn't the traditional one we would associate with that sterotype.
He doesn't necessarily cater to the press or the lobbyists or the collateral lines of power that have been in place for a long time, and that's pissed a bunch of people off. (Makes me happy though).
And that is one thing I really liked about some people in the Bush Admin as well, esp Rumsfield and the way he handled the press. But hey I am a bit more hawkish. Not that is was always the correct way to deal with them but I loved it when he handed them their assess in Q&A press meetings.
Funny how he noticed that and called you on it...true or not. I guess it's not OK to call people racist just because they don't like our president, but it's OK to call certain politicians nazi whores, among a million other silly names meant to cast aspersions on the "other party."
IMHO (the acronym of the week) those two notions don't jibe. Seems self-serving, to me, and I'm highly amused at the dichotomy.
Mere rhetorical frippery...
But they do border on whorish behavior IMHO.
I think he has his own "good ole boy network", it just isn't the traditional one we would associate with that sterotype.
with that "stereotype"? :eyebrow:
I'm not being a spelling nazi (hehehehee) I just find that to be an interesting choice of a word.
with that "stereotype"? :eyebrow:
I'm not being a spelling nazi (hehehehee) I just find that to be an interesting choice of a word.
:neutral:
It's not the 'whore' part of it that's the problem, merc, it's the 'nazi' part of it.
David Mitchell on nazi comparisons and Godwin's Law:
Before you start mouthing off about Hitler, you'd better know your Nazis
I can see why this is handy. A lot of amateur rhetoricians seem to confuse the terms "Nazi" and "nasty" ...[snip]...
The Godwin's law attitude is a well-meaning rule of thumb, designed to discourage abusive and hyperbolic remarks, but we mustn't be seduced into thinking that nothing really is like the Nazis any more – that that kind of evil has passed. When references to fascism and totalitarianism are accurate, just as when a responsible shepherd boy cries: "Wolf!", it's important to pay attention.
All of which just makes me angrier with irresponsible criers of "Hitler!", including both ends of the American political ZX Spectrum (by which I mean the far right and the nearly-as-far right). As many Americans go into a tailspin, coming to terms with the notion that poor people shouldn't be left to die of easily treatable diseases – even though, the USA being such a lovely meritocracy and everything, they must on some level deserve it (and, after all, what incentive is there to make something of your life if it's not the fear of an agonising, peritonitis-induced uninsured demise?) – there's been a frenzy of swastika-slinging.
It started relatively gently with Sarah Palin's dark allusion to almost eugenicist "death panels" being the inevitable consequence of state-sponsored healthcare, but now hysterical bloggers on both sides are labelling each other Nazis more often than they call themselves patriots. One particularly depressing website referred to the vandalism committed by opponents of the healthcare bill to five Democratic offices across the whole country as "Kristallnacht".
From
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/28/godwins-law-nazis-healthcare-mitchell
*ducks for cover*
with that "stereotype"? :eyebrow:
I'm not being a spelling nazi (hehehehee) I just find that to be an interesting choice of a word.
Yeah. That caught my attention somewhat as well.
Angry rhetoric protected, but can be disturbing.
"Free speech relieves the pressure of discontent in some ways," said Post, who founded the CIA's Center for the Analysis of Personality and Political Behavior.
Post said he is concerned, however, about messages coming from the conservative base. Last month, GOP chief Michael Steele called for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to be put on "the firing line," and House Minority Leader John Boehner said that a congressman "might be a dead man" because of his health care vote.
"I find some of this rhetoric recently -- 'reload' -- quite scary," Post said of a Twitter post by Sarah Palin directing followers to her Facebook page, which had crosshairs on the districts of 20 congressmen who voted for the controversial health care bill. "Some people are going to hear that as, 'Take up your arms.' "
"The righteous rage then becomes not just a rationalization for threatening rhetoric, but it has the potential of moving people to action," he said.
Therein lies the paradox for a country like the United States, where free speech is guaranteed. It's healthy to allow groups to vent, experts say, but not to the point that they incite violence.
It is disturbing, to say the least, to watch the sheep jump on the sheepwagon of anger and hate.
What, the "good 'ol boy network" is not a stereotype?
It really was a brilliant observation by our most eloquent and cunning linguist.
Merc could turn a monotype into a stereotype.
It is disturbing, to say the least, to watch the sheep jump on the sheepwagon of anger and hate.
What's more disturbing is to watch sheepeoples jump on the the bandwagon of assigning specific acts of dissent as a call to violence. Most of them have turned out to wackos like this guy:
On March 29, a Philadelphia man was charged with threatening in a YouTube video to kill Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and his family. Prosecutors say the suspect, Norman Leboon, has multiple personalities and is not competent to stand trial.
How about this statement:
Cantor, meanwhile, said a bullet struck the window of his campaign office building in Richmond. Police said the bullet was fired from a distance and broke the window — but didn’t penetrate the blinds inside — on a steep downward trajectory.
The office is in a generally safe part of the city, but about a half mile to a mile south of some of Richmond’s most dangerous neighborhoods.
Cantor said the House’s Democratic campaign chairman, Chris Van Hollen and Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine incited retribution against Republicans by telling The Huffington Post that the GOP would “own” responsibility for retaliatory slurs.
“It is reckless to use these incidents as media vehicles for political gain,” Cantor told reporters.
Read more:
http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/25/democrats-and-republicans-decry-threats-against-congress/#ixzz0lIMTH5ke
I would support throwing those who make threats against Congressmen and women into prison cells.... right next to the Congressmen and women.
This cannot be good news for the officer...
A federal judge has dismissed a Washington lawsuit by “birther” activist Orly Taitz challenging President Barack Obama’s citizenship.
Taitz, a dentist and lawyer from California known for her occasional TV news appearances, filed a “quo warranto” complaint challenging Obama’s status as a natural born citizen and demanding that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton provide a copy of the president’s birth certificate.
The case landed with Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who, suffice it to say, was having none of it.
“This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by [the] Constitution,” Lamberth wrote in a decision published on April 14. “This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.” (bold min)
Lamberth wrote that only the U.S. attorney general or a U.S. attorney’s office can ask a court to file a writ of quo warranto, which according to Black’s Law Dictionary is a “common-law writ used to inquire the authority by which a public office is held."
Hehehe - haven't heard that expression in awhile.
I wonder if that person is a reservist who just doesn't want to leave her lucrative practice in California and do her duty on deployment, so she made up this BS to 1)get released from active duty and 2) continue to make money. Boy would she be in for a surprise if that is the case....
She has nothing to do with it. The fact that this case (very similar to his) was dismissed makes his chances look even bleaker than before.
I see Bill Clinton is warning against the effects of extremists demonizing the government.
Clinton warned of the affect that angry political rhetoric might have on anti-government radicals like Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, pointing to Rep. Michele Bachmann calling the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress "the gangster government" in speaking to a tax day Tea Party rally on Thursday.
"They are not gangsters," Clinton told the newspaper. "They were elected. They are not doing anything they were not elected to do."
Clinton said demonizing the government with incendiary language can have effects beyond just rallying a crowd.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/16/clinton-we-dont-want-to-go-down-violent-anti-government-road-again/?fbid=Vl7HtI3DzDY#more-99979
whether or not you are inclined to listen to Ol' Bill, his points about the Internet and its effect are interesting.
In any case quixotic has just become my word of the week.
Clinton warned of the affect that angry political rhetoric might have on anti-government radicals like Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, pointing to Rep. Michele Bachmann calling the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress "the gangster government" in speaking to a tax day Tea Party rally on Thursday.
Effect, shurely?!
Not aimed at Cloud, who was quoting.
Caution, thread drift.
From the link in classicman's post.
The Justice Department's top foreign-bribery prosecutor, Mark Mendelsohn, who is leaving government service today, said he is looking forward to a "different kind of challenge" in private practice.
Mendelsohn is joining Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison as a partner in the Washington office, where he said he hopes to have a broad practice with a focus on building the firm's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act defense work. He said he was attracted to the New York-based firm’s “relatively small, collegial partnership.”
So now he's going to defend them... probably pays better, on the dark side.
Prove it.
Do you're own research, get back to me when you have something of substance to contribute.
Do you're own research, get back to me when you have something of substance to contribute.
Ok, so you can't, thanks.:)