Soldier refuses to deploy/follow Obama due to the POTUS is not US Citizen

[Joe Williams]

Though I am suspicious of all the sleight of hand surrounding Obama's deflection of the birthplace issue, it really is not up to each individual soldier to adjudge the fitness of his commaders and refuse lawful orders based on those individual judgments.

It is, in fact, their duty to the Constitution they've sworn an oath to uphold, to do just that.

 

[Boilers]

WHY are so many people in power content to tow the status quo?
Why are there NO PEOPLE that will stand up and make Obama unseal the docs and prove his birthplace?

What would Jefferson do?

 

[ron]

AHAHAHA

But seriously, the courts have dismissed lawsuits regarding his birth certificate. What's next? You refusing to follow a courts ruling because of activist judges or something? What if someone said the same thing under George W. Bush and not wanting to serve? You guys would probably call him a coward. I mean, not wanting to serve after you've signed a contract is fine, just face the penalties. And to accuse Obama as a war criminal is fresh, because we know how you guys reacted when liberals accused Cheney and Bush of war crimes.

 

[Dryden]

WHY are so many people in power content to tow the status quo?
Why are there NO PEOPLE that will stand up and make Obama unseal the docs and prove his birthplace?



The media would crucify anyone that speaks ill of the Chosen One.

 

[Joe Williams]

Yes, that's correct, absolutely no say. The Founders set it up so that the military is always subordinate to the civilian authority. That's the rule of law, not whoever wants to can make it up as they go.

But rule of law says that without being a natural born citizen, Obama is NOT "civilian authority." This soldier has set up a court martial, where it will have to be proven that the man acting as Commander in Chief is, in fact, that "lawful civilian authority." If he is, the soldier will be punished, and he knows that full well. If it is not proven, then the soldier has done his duty and upheld his oath, and the man acting as President will be the criminal.

There is no one here, not even the soldier, trying to flaunt rule of law. The question is what is actually legal, and that will be settled in court. Or should be... as noted, he'll probably just be discharged, which will only serve as further proof of the soldier's allegations. For, if the man acting as President actually WERE that legal civilian authority, this soldier should be convicted and punished. If he is not, there is certainly a very good reason for it.

 

[xamsx]

GREAT read.. Good for him.
It seems as if this issue fell behind and was forgotten about in the media after he won the election. After that, all the media did was report on him as 'a god'. Hell, it should've been covered and checked BEFORE he was even nominated. But I'm glad to see it's being brought back to some light.. and from a soldier, nonetheless, this time around. The questioning of his citizenship shouldn't stop until we see a fully LEGIT birth certificate, and until we do, his word in office shouldn't mean anything to this nation.

I'd love to see this go somewhere. Right now, only our military has the advantage and ability to bring this issue to light. I agree. If this doesn't start in the military, then where? The media is silencing WND.com by taking down their billboards asking simply, "Where's the Birth Certificate?". Politicians won't do it in fear of losing votes. Obviously the Supreme Court won't take the cases.

Only a military inquiry is going to do any good. Now we just need the brass to have the balls to do something about it.

I would absolutely love to see this go somewhere as well, but something tells me it won't. And if through the military this problem can't be solved, I, sadly, see it hopeless. Plus, after all, Barry is still millions of sheeple's savior..

 

[Joe Williams]

I can't believe you people! You act as if the people of the Military have no justice. Why do they have no right or say in this? If he truly is a foriegn national they have the OBLIGATION to bring it to light. They have the obligation to find out the truth if we cannot do so. No where in the Constitution does it say that the military cannot bring this issue up. It doesn't say they cannot investigate the President.

Why would you think they cannot do this? Show me the Code or Law that says they have no right to investigate this.

They have no right to investigate it. They do, however, have the right to Court Martial this soldier. As part of that process, actual proof will have to be provided that the President has lawful authority to issue orders.... if he does not meet the Constitutional requirements to be President, he has no legal authority to issue orders, and the soldier cannot be convicted of disobeying an order that legally never existed.

 

[ATF Consumer]

AHAHAHA

But seriously, the courts have dismissed lawsuits regarding his birth certificate. What's next? You refusing to follow a courts ruling because of activist judges or something? What if someone said the same thing under George W. Bush and not wanting to serve? You guys would probably call him a coward. I mean, not wanting to serve after you've signed a contract is fine, just face the penalties. And to accuse Obama as a war criminal is fresh, because we know how you guys reacted when liberals accused Cheney and Bush of war crimes.

This YOU stuff doesn't work in here...there are all types of positions here, so please don't blanket us all with YOU.

 

[Rob377]

This YOU stuff doesn't work in here...there are all types of positions here, so please don't blanket us all with YOU.

This is the same guy that implicitly called anyone that didn't vote for Obama an anti-muslim racist.

Ignore list FTW.

 

[CarmelHP]

I can't believe you people! You act as if the people of the Military have no justice. Why do they have no right or say in this? If he truly is a foriegn national they have the OBLIGATION to bring it to light. They have the obligation to find out the truth if we cannot do so. No where in the Constitution does it say that the military cannot bring this issue up. It doesn't say they cannot investigate the President.

Why would you think they cannot do this? Show me the Code or Law that says they have no right to investigate this.

You can't save the Republic by destroying it. Military interference in civilian affairs is the primordial evil warned against by the Founders. It's the evil that destroyed the great republics of history, that enabled and worked hand in glove with all of the great tyrannies of our time. There is constant ranting against "martial law," martial law means military rule. Is that really what you want to open up?

 

[ron]

This YOU stuff doesn't work in here...there are all types of positions here, so please don't blanket us all with YOU.

I'm addressing the people that are agreeing with the soldier's actions, I apologize if I led you to believe that I was speaking to all of INGO readers.

 

[Rob377]

You can't save the Republic by destroying it. Military interference in civilian is the primordial evil warned against by the Founders. It's the evil that destroyed the great republics of history, that enabled and worked hand in glove with all of the great tyrannies of our time. There is constant ranting against "martial law," martial law means military rule. Is that really what you want to open up?

True.
Many of the Founders were against even having a standing military at all.

 

[ATF Consumer]

I'm addressing the people that are agreeing with the soldier's actions, I apologize if I led you to believe that I was speaking to all of INGO readers.

No problem...sometimes it helps to reply to a particular quote which helps identify your audience.

 

[CarmelHP]

They have no right to investigate it. They do, however, have the right to Court Martial this soldier. As part of that process, actual proof will have to be provided that the President has lawful authority to issue orders.... if he does not meet the Constitutional requirements to be President, he has no legal authority to issue orders, and the soldier cannot be convicted of disobeying an order that legally never existed.

There is proof, incontrovertible proof, that Obama was inaugurated as President, after an election by the electoral college, certified by a joint session of Congress. The inquiry, even if allowed to go that far, will end there. After a President is inaugurated, the Constitution provides for 1 method of removal. Congress is the only authority constitutionally permitted to determine the President's fitness for office. I'd like to see them do it, but I won't hold my breath.

 

[SavageEagle]

They have no right to investigate it. They do, however, have the right to Court Martial this soldier. As part of that process, actual proof will have to be provided that the President has lawful authority to issue orders.... if he does not meet the Constitutional requirements to be President, he has no legal authority to issue orders, and the soldier cannot be convicted of disobeying an order that legally never existed.

Is this not investigating?

You can't save the Republic by destroying it. Military interference in civilian affairs is the primordial evil warned against by the Founders. It's the evil that destroyed the great republics of history, that enabled and worked hand in glove with all of the great tyrannies of our time. There is constant ranting against "martial law," martial law means military rule. Is that really what you want to open up?

So the soldier's duty to the Constitution and to uphold it now means nothing because you think the Military demanding PROOF of legitimacy is the same as Martial Law? Give me a break.

There is proof, incontrovertible proof, that Obama was inaugurated as President, after an election by the electoral college, certified by a joint session of Congress. The inquiry, even if allowed to go that far, will end there. After a President is inaugurated, the Constitution provides for 1 method of removal. Congress is the only authority constitutionally permitted to determine the President's fitness for office. I'd like to see them do it, but I won't hold my breath.

And here's the kicker... How can Congress obtain the proof? Through an investigation prior to their hearings. Just like you can't put someone infront of a jury without a prior investigation.

And here's another kicker...

What if Congress fails in their duty and doesn't challenge the President? What if they fail to do their duty to uphold the Constitution? Do we just say, "OK, that's fine. Do as you wish oh Mighty Congress! We bow before thee!"???????? Or do we accept the fact that the military has a standing legal obligation to question the reasonable doubt of our Commander in Chief's legitimacy as POTUS?

 

[bcleven]

i can only hope this gets more news coverage. this guy has guts. you have to give him that. i wish him well.

i have to challenge the idea that the Major is disobeying lawful orders. A usurper to the office of President is unable to give a lawful order, because he does not have the authority to give any orders, since he can not be President if he is not a natural born citizen, which there is sufficient reason to doubt, given the subterfuge and obfuscation of the issue by the administration and the Obama faction.

 

[CarmelHP]

Not because I say those things, but because that is where the Constitution has left it. You remember, the Constitution, the item that you're supposedly protecting by disobeying it?

 

[jeremy]

The problem SE is that a very fragile balance is about to be changed possibly not for the better. Let us say that for some reason the CM Authority does find this innocent. What would have the military do next...

 

[ron]

This is the same guy that implicitly called anyone that didn't vote for Obama an anti-muslim racist.

Ignore list FTW.

Rob does not like me!


Edit: Also I'm pretty sure I didn't imply that since Obama isn't a muslim.

 

[Joe Williams]

There is proof, incontrovertible proof, that Obama was inaugurated as President, after an election by the electoral college, certified by a joint session of Congress. The inquiry, even if allowed to go that far, will end there. After a President is inaugurated, the Constitution provides for 1 method of removal. Congress is the only authority constitutionally permitted to determine the President's fitness for office. I'd like to see them do it, but I won't hold my breath.

However, those are NOT the only Constitutional requirements. No matter how many votes he gets, no matter what the Electoral College does, NONE of it matter if the man is not a natural born citizen. The EC does not have the authority to waive the Constitutional requirements to be eligible to hold office. Congress does not have the authority to waive the citizenship requirements. If they improperly seated a person who is not legally fit to be President, they have betrayed their oaths, but the members of the military are not released from theirs. NOTHING gives Obama legal authority to be President if he is not a natural born citizen. If he is not, he does not need removed from office, because he does not legally hold office, never has, his continued presence there is unlawful, and his orders hold no weight. This soldier has a duty under law to challenge any orders issued by someone he has reasonable grounds to believe is a usurper, and absent proof that he's been given lawful orders, by a man legally bound to issue them, he has no obligation to obey orders issued by said man. Congress' decision to seat a man reasonably believed to be a foreigner not legally allowed to hold office without insuring he met the requirements of law does NOT confer on the person illegally holding power the legal authority to issue orders. If you REALLY believe in rule of law, you cannot require citizens (which our soldiers are, after all) bound by oath to defend the Constitution to willfully ignore it simply because other citizens (our Congress) has willfully chosen to attempt an illegal overthrow of said document. That soldier's duty is, in fact, to do exactly what he is doing and attempt to restore rule of law to a land that is NOT being governed by such at this point in time.