# Soldier defies President.



## searcher (Feb 25, 2009)

*I am not sure if this has been posted or if any of you have heard this, but here it is.*


OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Soldier doubts eligibility, defies president's orders
'As an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 23, 2009
9:35 pm Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily 



Soldier Scott Easterling 

A U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq has called President Obama an "impostor" in a statement in which he affirmed plans to join as plaintiff in a challenge to Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief. 

The statement was publicized by California attorney Orly Taitz who, along with her Defend Our Freedom Foundation, is working on a series of legal cases seeking to uncover Obama's birth records and other documents that would reveal whether he meets the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. 

"As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States," wrote Scott Easterling in a "to-whom-it-may-concern" letter. 


Rest of the article can be found here.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 25, 2009)

Over here to get into school, college etc plus get your National Insurance number, pay your income tax and all those official things you have to have proof of who you are and these all demand a birth certificate. I can't imagine it's different in America so surely if Obama wasn't US born someone from his past if not many would have said before now that he wasn't born in the USA?


----------



## StrongFighter (Feb 25, 2009)

That is great news !!! I have never trusted that weasel from day one. 

I hope more men and women in uniform join Lieutenant Easterling because the Constitution says our U.S. Armed Forces are to fight foreign or domestic enemies. The president is not exempt from this ' American only ' clause. It was put in place for a good reason and that should be common-sense too. 

I also say replace the entire people who screened the eligibility of the presidency because they did such a poor and a very dangerous job for the American people.


----------



## StrongFighter (Feb 25, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Over here to get into school, college etc plus get your National Insurance number, pay your income tax and all those official things you have to have proof of who you are and these all demand a birth certificate. I can't imagine it's different in America so surely if Obama wasn't US born someone from his past if not many would have said before now that he wasn't born in the USA?


 
The problem is that he has not provided his original birth certificate and many people have requested to see the birth certificate. Obama continues to refuse to do so.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 25, 2009)

Has he refused?  Or have the requests just not been answered?  Also, given the screening process I'm assuming that someone for the highest office would go through, isn't all this a little 'thin'?


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 25, 2009)

StrongFighter said:


> The problem is that he has not provided his original birth certificate and many people have requested to see the birth certificate. Obama continues to refuse to do so.


 
You mean this?
http://www.politifact.com/media/img/graphics/birthCertObama.jpg


from here
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/


----------



## elder999 (Feb 25, 2009)

Obama has been receiving classified briefings and Secret Service protection since relatively early in his candidacy. As such, he was investigated by the Office of Personnel Management. While at the National Labs we tend to call the OPM _revenge of the "C" students,_ I have to say that they are thorough. They would have confirmed his citizenship or lack of it early in the process. In any case......



StrongFighter said:


> The problem is that he has not provided his original birth certificate and many people have requested to see the birth certificate. Obama continues to refuse to do so.


 

The problem is that he's not a Republican.The problem is that his last name rhymes with _Osama._ The problem is that his middle name is _Hussein_. The problem is the *color of his skin*. Get over it, already-he's President.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Feb 25, 2009)

Originally Posted by *StrongFighter* 

 
_The problem is that he has not provided his original birth certificate and many people have requested to see the birth certificate. Obama continues to refuse to do so._



elder999 said:


> The problem is that he's not a Republican.The problem is that his last name rhymes with _Osama._ The problem is that his middle name is _Hussein_. The problem is the *color of his skin*. Get over it, already-he's President.


 
That says it all.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 25, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> That says it all.


 
Actually, it doesn't. As an active duty member of the U.S. military, Lt. Easterling is bound _by law_ to refrain from politicking-to keep his politics private, and restricted to his votes. Since the citizenship requirement has been met to the satisfaction of the government-depsite the numerous so-called challenges from the citizenry-tand Obama has been sworn in, further efforts can only be politicking, and Lt. Easterling is breaking the law, and making himself liable for disciplinary action....hence, his being advised to seek legal counsel before making statements aginst his Commander in Chief-good advice that he's chosen not to take....


----------



## StrongFighter (Feb 25, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Obama has been receiving classified briefings and Secret Service protection since relatively early in his candidacy. As such, he was investigated by the Office of Personnel Management. While at the National Labs we tend to call the OPM _revenge of the "C" students,_ I have to say that they are thorough. They would have confirmed his citizenship or lack of it early in the process. In any case......
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
There has nothing to do with any of the above, as many liberals claim. 

Many people have asked to see his birth certificate, especially in high positions of authority like congressmen, senators etc. 

Now it is U.S. Armed Forces personnel wanting to know if his birth certificate is that of a U.S. born citizen &#8211; on pain of court-martial &#8211; to know that Obama is eligible.

How more patriotic can you get than that ? 

Blessed be Lieutenant Scott Easterling's name and memory forever for challenging the POTUS on pain of court martial. 

The United States Army Lieutenant has more guts than Obama does. Why is Barack Hussein Obama hiding behind his refusals ?

Why are the U.S. courts denying American citizen's requests to verify that Obama is a U.S. born citizen ? They should have been granted.

The Secret Service and the Electoral College process can be corrupted just like any organization. They are not immune from corruption. 

The only way to know for sure is to ask for his birth certificate and have it REALLY authenticated by independent sources free of any bias, not from government sources.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 25, 2009)

StrongFighter said:


> There has nothing to do with any of the above, as many liberals claim.


 
I'm not a "liberal, " though some would disagree with that based on some of my viewpoints. I didn't vote for Obama.



StrongFighter said:


> Many people have asked to see his birth certificate, especially in high positions of authority like congressmen, senators etc.


 
_It's been seen_, and autheniticated-some people just aren't satisfied-like _Republican_ congressmen, or one's that don't like that his name rhymes with _Osama_, or that his  middle name is _Hussein_, or the *color of his skin.*



StrongFighter said:


> . Why is Barack Hussein Obama hiding behind his refusals ?


 
Because he has nothing more to prove?



StrongFighter said:


> Why are the U.S. courts denying American citizen's requests to verify that Obama is a U.S. born citizen ?


 
Because it's been verified to the satisfaction of the courts, and there's nothing more to prove? Because American citizens don't have any jurisdictional basis under law to make such challenges?



StrongFighter said:


> The Secret Service and the Electoral College process can be corrupted just like any organization. They are not immune from corruption.


 
That's almost paranoid beyond belief-think about it: Bush was President when Obama's campaign began. Do you really think that if Obama lacked that most basic requirement for candidacy, the Bush administration would have permitted it to go on?



StrongFighter said:


> The only way to know for sure is to ask for his birth certificate and have it REALLY authenticated by independent sources free of any bias, not from government sources.


 
It's been REALLY authenticated by independent sources free of any bias.

Oh, though I guess they _were_ biased-to the extent that they didn't care that Obama's not a _Republicant_, or that his last name rhymes with _Osama_, or that his middle name is _Hussein_, or about the *color of his skin.*


----------



## Ninjamom (Feb 25, 2009)

elder999 said:


> ........As an active duty member of the U.S. military, Lt. Easterling is bound _by law_ to refrain from politicking-..........and Lt. Easterling is breaking the law, and making himself liable for disciplinary action....


Exactly true - and if he refuses a lawful order from his Commander-in-Chief, he will be hung from the rafters by his gonads, and rightly so.

Even while on active military duty, Lt. Easterling retains most of the rights of any other US citizen, including the rights to seek legal remedy in court and to petition for redress of grievances.  In other words, he has standing and he can sue.  However, as in most things, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it.


----------



## StrongFighter (Feb 25, 2009)

Have you not noticed these three quotes ?

_Easterling, however, is subject to enemy fire and certainly would have a reason to need to know the legitimacy of his orders, she argued._

_"I implore all service-members and citizens to contact their senators and representatives and demand that they require Mr. Obama prove his eligibility. Our Constitution and our great nation must not be allowed to be disgraced," he wrote. _

_Taitz said Easterling is among the plaintiffs she is assembling for a new legal action over Obama's eligibility. Others include a list of state lawmakers who also would be required in their official position to follow orders of the president._ 

If Lt. Easterling is granted permission to see official documents pertaining to Barack Hussein Obama's birth certificate then he would have no problems following military orders and that in fact would have cleared the way for Obama to be the Commander in Chief.

The electoral college can check him out all they want but it is the men and women in uniform who protect our country therefore he has a military obligation.

It is not just him, but many people like the lawmakers !! 

They are the ones supposed to see the birth certificate in order to vet Obama's eligibility for the POTUS and the lawmakers have not been able to see that yet.

The Bush administration are not the ones to look into the eligibility requirements. 

Why were the Republicans and some Democrats with serious and honest doubts asking to see his birth certificate before Obama was voted into office on November the 20th ?

It is the right people that are supposed to be doing their jobs.

I love my country but I fear the wool is being pulled over the American people's eyes.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Feb 25, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Actually, it doesn't. As an active duty member of the U.S. military, Lt. Easterling is bound _by law_ to refrain from politicking-to keep his politics private, and restricted to his votes. Since the citizenship requirement has been met to the satisfaction of the government-depsite the numerous so-called challenges from the citizenry-tand Obama has been sworn in, further efforts can only be politicking, and Lt. Easterling is breaking the law, and making himself liable for disciplinary action....hence, his being advised to seek legal counsel before making statements aginst his Commander in Chief-good advice that he's chosen not to take....


 
I had assumed as much.


----------



## StrongFighter (Feb 25, 2009)

Ninjamom said:


> Exactly true - and if he refuses a lawful order from his Commander-in-Chief, he will be hung from the rafters by his gonads, and rightly so.
> 
> Even while on active military duty, Lt. Easterling retains most of the rights of any other US citizen, including the rights to seek legal remedy in court and to petition for redress of grievances. In other words, he has standing and he can sue. However, as in most things, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it.


 
His contention is that as an active member of the U.S. military, he is required to follow orders from a sitting president, and he needs  on pain of court-martial  to know that Obama is eligible.

"I implore all service-members and citizens to contact their senators and representatives and demand that they require Mr. Obama prove his eligibility. Our Constitution and our great nation must not be allowed to be disgraced," he wrote.

"Lt. Easterling, As a retired US Army SFC, I salute you sir as a true American patriot and hero! Thank you for your unselfish service to our country. It is rare to find someone today with such moral courage to do the right thing regardless of repercussions," said one contributor.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 25, 2009)

elder999 said:


> The problem is that he's not a Republican.The problem is that his last name rhymes with _Osama._ The problem is that his middle name is _Hussein_. The problem is the *color of his skin*. Get over it, already-he's President.


 

There are things that raised doubts tho, to be sure.  Claims by family members and officials of foriegn Governments that he was born elsewhere the two biggest that I have heard.  

While I would certainly assume that he had the proper background checks, if he is in office thru some conspiricy or misdeed on the part of the Illuminati or Masons or Jack Bauer that check could have been faked and or bypassed.  I just don't have enough tin foil left to believe that anymore.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 25, 2009)

President Obama's political opponents have had time and opportunities enough to find out whether he was born in the States or not. They have the motive and the money to do so, that they haven't seems to be proof enough. There will also be enough people in opposition to him in government bodies that also have the means to check his birth who also haven't come up with proof.
Service personnel take an oath, they also know that the President of the country they serve may not be of the same political conviction as themselves. They have pledged to serve their country, the country has chosen the President therefore service people should get on with their jobs and not break their oath to the country.
People who are anti Obama will believe what they want and keep their minds closed to anything they don't want to hear.


----------



## Korppi76 (Feb 25, 2009)

StrongFighter said:


> His contention is that as an active member of the U.S. military, he is required to follow orders from a sitting president, and he needs  on pain of court-martial  to know that Obama is eligible.
> 
> "I implore all service-members and citizens to contact their senators and representatives and demand that they require Mr. Obama prove his eligibility. Our Constitution and our great nation must not be allowed to be disgraced," he wrote.
> 
> "Lt. Easterling, As a retired US Army SFC, I salute you sir as a true American patriot and hero! Thank you for your unselfish service to our country. It is rare to find someone today with such moral courage to do the right thing regardless of repercussions," said one contributor.


As non English speaker I try to understand your point of few. 

You think that this officer is hero because he don't want to serve under your current president?
What I did understand from governments official pages they have checked your presidents birth certificate but because you have .. .how to say this in English... well your government is "not reliable" then your president should show his birth certificate to some outside reliable person who can then confirm that certificate is real?

I thought you would need that certificate some point earlier than just when you want to be president?

And is this always same way after each presidential election? Half of people are saying that election was rigged or there is something wrong with winner?

Sorry I must have missed the point somewhere but I got interested this thread because it seems to get out so much emotions.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 25, 2009)

Ninjamom said:


> . In other words, he has standing and he can sue. However, as in most things, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it.


 

Actually, by calling Obama an "impostor," he is speaking of his Commander in Chief with contempt, and in violation of Article 88 of the Code of Military Justice, and subject to court martial.


----------



## StrongFighter (Feb 25, 2009)

Look, I have no problem with Obama being president if his birth certificate is real according to the 'American only' clause and independent sources have verified this. 

I didn't vote for him either but I have the right to know as an American citizen if he is really an American citizen with no dual citizenship.

I think Obama is missing a very good opportunity here because the words of a U.S. serviceman weighs worth more than that of politicians. 

A serviceman's words are more honest and he has nothing to gain but a lot to lose on pain of court martial which is really brave and courageous of him to do that.

It is not just him but the state lawmakers have not been able to verify if his birth certificate meets the 'American only' clause.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 25, 2009)

StrongFighter said:


> Look, I have no problem with Obama being president if his birth certificate is real according to the 'American only' clause and independent sources have verified this.


 
Then this dicussion should be over-_*again*_. Independent sources have verified it, as has the State of Hawaii, and the State of Illinois-as a member of the bar, and, as a member of the Senate, he was subject to background investigations that begin with the attachment of a "real and true certified copy" of ones birth cetificate from the issuing agency, in his case, the Hawaii Department of Health. 

I know, I have to get one (a birth certificate) every five years for my clearance reinvestigation.......


----------



## Ninjamom (Feb 25, 2009)

"Lt" Easterling has the right to petition in court. In the meantime, he is subject to the same rules, regulations, and *laws* as all other military members. He has no 'right' to see Obama's birth certificate; he doesn't even have a 'right' to see his driver's license or his library card.

Far from being a hero, Lt Easterling's public stand is a black mark on the honor, integrity, and reputation of all the rest of us who have served or are serving in the US military. We have all taken the same oath to defend our Constitution, and willingly pledged our lives, if necessary, to do so.

I hope he faces courts-martial. And quckly.


----------



## Cirdan (Feb 25, 2009)

This Lieutenant is a disgrace. He should either keep his mouth shut or resign.


----------



## Ninjamom (Feb 25, 2009)

This was already discussed in depth on Martial Talk.

This thread:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=70166&highlight=certificate
includes a complete discussion, lists and links to the exact laws in questions, links to copies of Obama's birth records, and links to statements by Hawaii Health Dept. officials who have certified his 'official' birth certificate as authentic.

End of story.


----------



## arnisador (Feb 25, 2009)

Make room at Ft. Leavenworth for this weasel. He doesn't understand the role of the military in a democracy. This is distressing, unprofessional behaviour.


----------



## Brian King (Feb 25, 2009)

*Arnisador wrote:*



> Make room at Ft. Leavenworth for this weasel. He doesn't understand the role of the military in a democracy. This is distressing, unprofessional behaviour.


 
I thank the LT for his service but he should resign and do so quickly. He has shown a lack of regard and understanding of the constitution and his role as an officer in the Army. I do not know if he deserves Leavenworthyet but he is getting close, he does merit courts-martial. Should he refuse any order based on this crap that the President is not the our President and the CIC then yup get a cell and a new uniform and lose all the rights and privileges a soldier and an officer is due. 




> "Well, his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven't seen any birth certificate," Shelby said. "You have to be born in America to be president."


 
You have to be born in America to be president Nope not only untrue but utter BS and as a member of the government Shelby should know better. This has been resolved in prior court cases. I believe MacArthur went thru this in his run and President Jackson as well and John McCain was born on a base at the Panama Canal, there have been others as well.

The thing that makes this all so stupid and frankly a bit of a mental disorder is that the folks who believe this crud admit that Obamas mother was an American. That by itself makes him an American no matter where he was born. Folks that fall for this stuff are either completely ignorant of the constitution (sad that so many Americans are ignorant of this document) and the ways our government and laws work or they are suffering from some kind of mental illness and have such an irrational hatred and fear that they will lose their common sense they will believe and rationalize a bunch of nonsense. You see this same sort of stuff with the conspiracy freaks. 

*Elder999 wrote*
The problem is the *color of his skin*. (_Bolding by Elder999_)

I dont think this is true in this case but it does point out and justify my thoughts when so many people were saying that finally we can put to rest all the victimization and race baiting politics behind us with the election of the first person of color as U.S. President. I thought it would not but that it might get worse as now any criticism of governmental policies will be considered racism and that charge will be used by the ignorant and the manipulators to silence debate and dissenters. That racism exists there can be no doubt, it has in the past and will in the future, but not all disagreement is racist and we risk much when we scream too often that it is in my opinion.

Regards
Brian King


----------



## elder999 (Feb 25, 2009)

Brian said:


> *Elder999 wrote*
> The problem is the *color of his skin*. (_Bolding by Elder999_)


 
-_sigh_-

*elder999* _also_ wrote:

The problem is he's not a _Republican_. The problem is his name rhymes with _Osama_. the problem is that his middle name is _Hussein_....




Brian said:


> That racism exists there can be no doubt, it has in the past and will in the future, but not all disagreement is racist and we risk much when we scream too often that it is in my opinion


 
Saying he's not a U.S. citizen isn't legitimate criticism, or debate and dissent. The idea that it's got to be racist on the part of some is only common sense-we hardly heard the same sort of fuss about Mr. McCain's actually being born on foreign soil, and it's not because Americans were less ignorant about the legality of those circumstances........

....may as well be accusing _me_ of being racist..


----------



## MBuzzy (Feb 25, 2009)

Wow....I really have to comment on this one.  As an active duty military member, I can say that this "officer" is a disgrace to the US armed services.  He is in violation of every second of training and LAW possible and has no right to serve.  I am shocked that an officer would bring such a suit.  It is a good thing that he is prepared for the "pain of court-martial" because I'm sure he will see it.  I will withhold my real opinion of why he is bringing this suit - but I am sure that it has nothing to do with The President's eligibility.

As for The President's eligibility, the man has the highest security clearance available.  He was therefore investigated.  When I got my SECRET (lowest level security clearance) clearance they came and talked to my friends and family and pulled every document and record that I ever had.....what do you think they do for more highly classified clearances?

This is the exact reason why I don't comment on any thread related to the current commander-in-chief.  It is against the law for me to make any public comment in any way against the CinC.  Just as it is every other military member.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 25, 2009)

We have had a couple of army officers who wanted to make public their complaints about the wars and the way the government has handled them. To do so honourably they resigned their commissions first, then they could talk as private citizens. If this American officer felt strongly about this he should have resigned first. 

Is he perhaps being used?


----------



## MBuzzy (Feb 25, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> We have had a couple of army officers who wanted to make public their complaints about the wars and the way the government has handled them. To do so honourably they resigned their commissions first, then they could talk as private citizens. If this American officer felt strongly about this he should have resigned first.
> 
> Is he perhaps being used?



He is most certainly being used by the organization bringing the suit, to his own detriment.  

I whole heartedly agree.  Private citizens are free to say anything they want.  Officers are not.  We are bound by the UCMJ which is much more strict than civilian law.  By accepting a commission, you are agreeing to living to a more strict standard....if someone doesn't like that, we are a volunteer force...


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 25, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> There are things that raised doubts tho, to be sure.  Claims by family members and officials of foriegn Governments that he was born elsewhere the two biggest that I have heard.



Pride talkin'. Nothing more.



> While I would certainly assume that he had the proper background checks, if he is in office thru some conspiricy or misdeed on the part of the Illuminati or Masons or Jack Bauer that check could have been faked and or bypassed.  I just don't have enough tin foil left to believe that anymore.



Ditto.



StrongFighter said:


> His contention is that as an active member of the U.S. military, he is required to follow orders from a sitting president, and he needs  on pain of court-martial  to know that Obama is eligible.
> 
> "I implore all service-members and citizens to contact their senators and representatives and demand that they require Mr. Obama prove his eligibility. Our Constitution and our great nation must not be allowed to be disgraced," he wrote.



What was it the republicans were saying when certain soldiers filed for Conscientious Objector status at the start of the war with Iraq? What was it?  Oh that's right - 'your commander-in-chief has given you an order; follow it.'  I remember the smears from the right for those who could not stand to hear any kind of objection to the Iraq war whatsoever.  If Lt. Easterling is worried about being under fire, he should file suit against Dubya for war crimes - that's the man that put him there.


The document has been seen, checked, verified many times over.  That's probably why the cases are being denied and/or dismissed.

Guess what peeps? We have a black president ... 

_*GET OVER IT ALREADY!!*_


----------



## KELLYG (Feb 25, 2009)

Here is an interesting twist. I personally have a certificate of live birth that resembles the one tez3 listed in one of her posts.  But I also have a birth certificate.  The birth certificate is the original that has fathers, name, mothers name, date day and time of delivery, weight and inches in length as well as feet print, the name and signature of the attending physic an, hospital and hospital location and religion etc.  If this document were presented for review it would quell some of the disputes.  There was also some insinuation that when Mr Obama's mother remarried that Mr. Obama was adopted and became a de-facto citizen of the country his step dad was from due to Obama being under age?


----------



## elder999 (Feb 25, 2009)

KELLYG said:


> Here is an interesting twist. I personally have a certificate of live birth that resembles the one tez3 listed in one of her posts. But I also have a birth certificate. The birth certificate is the original that has fathers, name, mothers name, date day and time of delivery, weight and inches in length as well as feet print, the name and signature of the attending physic an, hospital and hospital location and religion etc.


 
Were you born in Hawaii? The nature of that document varies from state to state.



KELLYG said:


> There was also some insinuation that when Mr Obama's mother remarried that Mr. Obama was adopted and became a de-facto citizen of the country his step dad was from due to Obama being under age?


 
Even if he did obtain _dual_ citizenship under such a mechanism (and I'm pretty sure there really wasn't one) that doesn't alter the fact that he was  (cue music)  _*Born in the U.S.A.*_....:lfao:


----------



## KELLYG (Feb 25, 2009)

The birth certificate that tez3 posted was a (duplicate) certificate of live birth it was not the original.   The form if you look at it was created in 2001 and he was born in 1961.  This was my point.  No I was not born in Hawaii.   But my Mother was into genealogy and I have seen several birth certificates from all over and most are very similar to the details listed in the Original birth certificate.  We were discussing the soldiers want to receive concrete proof of Obama's birth place,  these were some of the issues or mystery's that have clouded Obama's legitimacy.  I feel that if a man wants to insure himself that the commander in chief is the commander in chief before he puts himself in the line of fire then he should be able to satisfy himself.  After all if you are shot dead in the line of duty there are no do overs.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 25, 2009)

If there was any legitimacy to this the Republicans would have been all over it at election time. However it does seem like an easy conspiracy theory to disprove and I dont understand why Obama's "people" haven't just "put a stake in it" 

I also think that this isnt very "new". When I was "in" there was widespread disdain for Pres Clinton and the political hacks he placed into the military system (Clark).


----------



## Carol (Feb 25, 2009)

Congratulations Lieutenant Easterling!  You've gotten your name in publications and blogs around the world and captured the attention of the entire U.S. Military (even though they are kinda busy at the moment.)  What are you going to do next?  

"I'm going to Disne...." errrrrr.....never mind.

Sorry, I continue to wish President Obama well, but I am not a fan of his, and after hearing his "I have not yet begun to spend" implications in his speech last night, I am even less of a fan.  But what this Lieutenant is doing is nothing more than political posturing, pure and simple.  What's even worse is that he is indulging his own opinion at the risk of the moral of the folks that have pledged selflessly to serve our nation regardless of who got elected.

Again I ask...where is the conservative leadership of a person like Newt Gingrich, that bravely stepped forward with ideas such as the Contract With America, stating this is what we're going to do, this is how we are going to do it, this is why we are going to do it.  Where has the conservative tenet of rugged individualism gone?  Is this the best we can do is hand wringing and name calling?   It is going to be _ideas_, _strength_, and _leadership _that put more conservatives in office...not "Boo hoo hoo the ethnic guy won."

18 months to go to the midterm election and the conservatives are still licking their wounds and crying.  Un-frikkin-believable. *This is not leadership.*


----------



## Brian King (Feb 25, 2009)

> *elder999* _also_ wrote:





> The problem is he's not a _Republican_. The problem is his name rhymes with _Osama_. the problem is that his middle name is _Hussein_....


 
I agree with you sir that these are the main reasons the irrational fringe have latched on to this insane idea and cause. I did not feel the need to address these and that was a mistake that brings about confusion. It was laziness and trying accomplish more than I really have time for on my part. 




> Saying he's not a U.S. citizen isn't legitimate criticism, or debate and dissent. The idea that it's got to be racist on the part of some is only common sense-we hardly heard the same sort of fuss about Mr. McCain's actually being born on foreign soil, and it's not because Americans were less ignorant about the legality of those circumstances........


 
I disagree as we have both agreed that it is due to the fact of his name rhyming with Osama (spit) that his middle name is Hussein and that he is not Republican. I will add that he is not third party to the not Republican complaint as many of those trying for court battles and petitions on this issue are third partiers. I will also add the fact that he was raised and schooled as a Muslim in his early childhood years also has the fringe in a tizzy. I did not see the same level of irrational fear and hatred offered when Powell was in the running, or any of the other candidates of color have ran in the past. I did see this level against umm religious types running. I am thinking Kennedy specifically and the Mormon (my apologies I am drawing a blank on his name and am running very late for work) who ran as Republican during this race. Rather than crying racism which I cannot agree with I do think the cry of religious bigotries could be argued and better made than the charge of racism. That some on the fringe side are racist is no doubt but I hardly think a majority or even a large percentage. 




> ....may as well be accusing _me_ of being racist..


Whatever 
Yawn if you wish to claim victim hood have fun with it sir but for me it is a boring silly stupid tactic that reflects upon those that use it and on my part does not shut down the conversation/dialog from any kind of guilt or acceptance of the charge but from the acceptance that it is too much work conversing with deliberate ignorance and those who wish to wallow in it. 

On the issue of the LT and whether our President was legally elected I think we agree more than disagree. I do not think the LT and those on that fringe are racially motivated you do. I can live with that. I can call the LT derelict in duty and judge him as dishonorable but I cannot call him a racist and will not until he proves otherwise. We have different standards on drawing and dropping the race card. I think it is a valid card to be played but only when it is needed and is true but if played to often lessen its impact and validity. 

So if you were offended and thought I was calling you a racist, I was not but I am amused that you pulled out the card. 

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 25, 2009)

KELLYG said:


> The birth certificate that tez3 posted was a (duplicate) certificate of live birth it was not the original. The form if you look at it was created in 2001 and he was born in 1961. This was my point. No I was not born in Hawaii. But my Mother was into genealogy and I have seen several birth certificates from all over and most are very similar to the details listed in the Original birth certificate. We were discussing the soldiers want to receive concrete proof of Obama's birth place, these were some of the issues or mystery's that have clouded Obama's legitimacy. I feel that if a man wants to insure himself that the commander in chief is the commander in chief before he puts himself in the line of fire then he should be able to satisfy himself. After all if you are shot dead in the line of duty there are no do overs.


 
I can't imagine bureauracy in your country being any different from ours so I don't think you would be able to get a duplicate of any document without having to jump through a few hoops and prove you were entitled to have it.
If you have doubts about your commander in chief you resign, simple as.


----------



## Brian King (Feb 25, 2009)

*Archangel M wrote:*



> "I dont understand why Obama's "people" haven't just "put a stake in it" "


 
Really?
I think it is good politics on their part. As long as these fringe types are out there screaming their idiocy the administration can tie these nuts to any real dissent and doing so de-legitimize that dissent. If I argue about a position the administration is taking they can come on and say not true it is just like those that keep bringing up I am not an American blah blah blah) I now have to defend that I do not think he is not an American I am not like those fringe guys and try to point out he did not offer rebuttal or even address the complaint/dissent. They can use these fringe groups to tarnish the reputation of any that oppose their ideas. I imagine that they want them around for a very long time. My opinion your mileage may vary. 

Regard
Brian King


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 25, 2009)

But again ... it's been said that people here don't think it's racially inclined ... but the McCain thing was proven and not even murmured about afterward.  These issues don't seem to carry as much weight with whites as they do blacks.  You can deny it all you want ... but it's there and this must ultimately be dealt with.

*side note: I watched "What would you do?" with John Quinones last night and when three white youths were publicly trashing a car, 911 received three phone calls: one regarding the kids and the car, two about three blacks asleep in a car in a parking lot nearby. Those three black people were family members of one of three black actors that replaced the three white boys.  Now when _these_ boys were doing the very same thing to the car, 911 was hit with call after call after call. Racism - it's out there.*


----------



## KELLYG (Feb 25, 2009)

I personally have no problem with our president, I did not vote for him but he is our President.  I think that the Lt in question, since he is actively serving our country, should be able to say what he wants. He probably has more rights to it than I since I've never served in the Military nor put my life on the line for my country. With that in mind he should understand that he will have to  face the consequences of his actions what ever they be Dis-Honorable discharge, jail , loss of benefits or a trip to Disney Land.


----------



## KELLYG (Feb 25, 2009)

TAZ3.
I was just pointing out that there are two different types of birth records 
1 certificate of live birth   2 birth certificate.  There is no problem in getting a certificate of live birth but the birth certificate is the original.


----------



## Carol (Feb 25, 2009)

Legally they are the same weight.


----------



## KELLYG (Feb 25, 2009)

Yes legally they are the same weight but one is filled out at the time of birth the other is a copy.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 25, 2009)

The state of Hawaii (as other states do) verify the original document and then certify an abstract.  The original document, in the state of Hawaii, is not a public document, hence they will not release it to anyone other than family - but if that document isn't on record, they cannot issue the abstract.


----------



## MBuzzy (Feb 25, 2009)

Just to put one thing to rest - and this is what bothers me the most.  AND the reason that military members aren't allowed to do things like this.  People in this post and I'm sure around the country have somehow connect ONE soldier, who is breaking the law, to the rest of the military. 

Let me assure you all.  This is ONE solider.  His personal views DO NOT reflect those of the entire military.  Believe it or not, we all have our own political opinions and affiliations, but we are responsible enough to keep them to ourselves and follow orders.  

I don't want anyone thinking that _solder*S*_ are questioning legitimacy or orders.  This is 100% FALSE.  One SOLDIER is question legitimacy and not following orders.  He is wrong in every sense of the words and his actions should not reflect on the rest of the military.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 25, 2009)

StrongFighter said:


> That is great news !!! I have never trusted that weasel from day one.
> 
> I hope more men and women in uniform join Lieutenant Easterling because the Constitution says our U.S. Armed Forces are to fight foreign or domestic enemies. The president is not exempt from this ' American only ' clause. It was put in place for a good reason and that should be common-sense too.
> 
> I also say replace the entire people who screened the eligibility of the presidency because they did such a poor and a very dangerous job for the American people.


Questioning the president and the will of the people? Treason.


----------



## KELLYG (Feb 25, 2009)

mcbuzzy

You are right the LT. in question is one man with one opinion.

 I have the utmost respect for the Lady's and gentlemen that serve in the Military.  I also appreciate what they do every day for us.


----------



## Carol (Feb 25, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> The state of Hawaii (as other states do) verify the original document and then certify an abstract.  The original document, in the state of Hawaii, is not a public document, hence they will not release it to anyone other than family - but if that document isn't on record, they cannot issue the abstract.



As far as I know (I could be wrong) Hawaii (as well as other states) will not release original documents at all. They are property of the state, stored in archive.  This is why, legally, a certified copy is the same weight as what is filled out at the time of birth.

There is no law that says anyone has to _like _the fact that legally, they are the same weight.  Also no law saying that one has to like our President.  But, that is an entirely different argument.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 25, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> The state of Hawaii (as other states do) verify the original document and then certify an abstract. The original document, in the state of Hawaii, is not a public document, hence they will not release it to anyone other than family - but if that document isn't on record, they cannot issue the abstract.


 

That's what I thought.


----------



## grydth (Feb 25, 2009)

KELLYG said:


> I personally have no problem with our president, I did not vote for him but he is our President.  I think that the Lt in question, since he is actively serving our country, should be able to say what he wants. He probably has more rights to it than I since I've never served in the Military nor put my life on the line for my country. With that in mind he should understand that he will have to  face the consequences of his actions what ever they be Dis-Honorable discharge, jail , loss of benefits or a trip to Disney Land.



Well I did serve in the military, and relevant for this purpose, that included a couple years as a military prosecutor.

No, people in the military can not - and should not be able to - publicly say anything they please. They give up some freedoms when they volunteer to protect ours. 

Officers are not entitled to have their own back up checks run of the entire military and civilian chain of command.... just imagine the consequences were they allowed to review court records, DNA samples, fingerprint papers before doing their duty. This guy has no legal grounds to stand on. *None.*

Officers may not engage in conduct unbecoming an officer, in conduct detrimental to good order and discipline and they may not engage in open politics. In egregious cases, the conduct may constitute disobedience of orders or even mutiny.

Officers may be _Dismissed_ from the Service as a result of a General Court Martial, or they may be allowed to  resign their Commissions - the very likely outcome here. He will then be made into a faux folk hero by those who are exploiting him at present.


----------



## searcher (Feb 25, 2009)

elder999 said:


> The problem is that he's not a Republican.


 


Now that is where it gets very interesting, since the original person to bring up Mr. Obama's birth certificate was individuals from his own party.   A man by the name of Philip J. Berg was the person to bring it into question and he is Democrat.


----------



## MBuzzy (Feb 25, 2009)

This man should not be a martyr after he is released from service - or put into Leavenworth (hopefully).  Me should be a bad example of how predjudice and political _opinions_ can interfere with reason, good judgement, and _*reality*_.  Seriously, people need to give it up.  The election is over, he is president.  Like it or not.  As others have said, if he wasn't a minority and his middle name wasn't Hussein, we wouldn't be having this conversation.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 25, 2009)

How long ago was that, *Searcher*?


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 25, 2009)

grydth said:


> Well I did serve in the military, and relevant for this purpose, that included a couple years as a military prosecutor.
> 
> No, people in the military can not - and should not be able to - publicly say anything they please. They give up some freedoms when they volunteer to protect ours.
> 
> ...


 
This is almost word for word the same as our military laws. We have 'prejudicial' instead of 'detrimental' but the meaning and the spirit is exactly the same.
To have otherwise leaves our countries open to military coups.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 25, 2009)

searcher said:


> Now that is where it gets very interesting, since the original person to bring up Mr. Obama's birth certificate was individuals from his own party. A man by the name of Philip J. Berg was the person to bring it into question and he is Democrat.


 

Oh yeah-the guy who filed a RICO case against George W. bush and 155 other people for their complicity in the 9/11 attacks. 

Too bad we don't have a tinfoil hat smiley 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





....:lfao:


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 25, 2009)

MBuzzy said:


> This man should not be a martyr after he is released from service - or put into Leavenworth (hopefully).  Me should be a bad example of how predjudice and political _opinions_ can interfere with reason, good judgement, and _*reality*_.  Seriously, people need to give it up.  The election is over, he is president.  Like it or not.  As others have said, if he wasn't a minority and his middle name wasn't Hussein, we wouldn't be having this conversation.



I dunno about that. I think that if the Republicans had something like this against Clinton in the 90's it would have made the rounds as well. The race card is far too easily played without some proof that the guy is a racist.


----------



## grydth (Feb 25, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I dunno about that. I think that if the Republicans had something like this against Clinton in the 90's it would have made the rounds as well. The race card is far too easily played without some proof that the guy is a racist.



Courts have decided that nobody 'has something' on Obama. I'm thinking if there was any substantive legal question, the Chief Justice of the United States would not have sworn President Obama in.

If memory serves me... When Clinton was in office, a General (Singlaub?) did refer to him derisively and publicly as ' our dope smoking skirt chasing draft dodging commander in chief'. Now even though those things happened to be *true*, an officer then - _*and now*_ - has no business making such statements. He was speedily forced into retirement.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 25, 2009)

Just to clarify..I dont think there is any substance to this Obama birth stuff. My reference was just to say that I think that this has more to do with politics than race.


----------



## grydth (Feb 25, 2009)

I'd clarify also, by making it clear that I am not saying your motives are suspect in any way.


----------



## arnisador (Feb 25, 2009)

KELLYG said:


> I think that the Lt in question, since he is actively serving our country, should be able to say what he wants. He probably has more rights to it than I



That's just not the law (i., the UCMJ).

If the military decides whether it wants to serve the current leader or no, there's chaos. Look at all the third-world countries whose militaries continually overthrow their leader. The professionalim and loyalty of the officer corps is one of the reasons why we're different. Our officers follow their CinC...respecting the _office_ even if they dislike the _officeholder_.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 25, 2009)

KELLYG said:


> TAZ3.
> I was just pointing out that there are two different types of birth records
> 1 certificate of live birth 2 birth certificate. There is no problem in getting a certificate of live birth but the birth certificate is the original.


 

Must be a jurisdictional thing then because here, the hospital fills a certificate of live birth that the family must register with the province. The extract requested from the province is called a birth certificate.


----------



## searcher (Feb 26, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> How long ago was that, *Searcher*?


 

I would have to go back and look, but it was brought to my attention in October IIRC.

I try to remind everyone when they bring up the party thing that it was HIS party that first launched the investigation.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Feb 26, 2009)

searcher said:


> I try to remind everyone when they bring up the party thing that it was HIS party that first launched the investigation.


 
You mean it was Phil Berg that brought the suit? I'm confused.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 26, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> You mean it was Phil Berg that brought the suit? I'm confused.


 

Phil Berg, world class nutjob and litigious git, was a Hillary supporter who brought suit back in August 2008, which was pretty much rejected by the Supreme Court, and sits in a Third District Court of Appeals limbo..... Several other suits have been filed, but the chief obstacle to them has been lack of standing: none of the litigants was actually running for President, or a member of the Electoral College, except for Alan Keyes, who filed a suit in Nov, 2008. 

You can read the short story on just _how *nuts*_ Philip J. Berg is here, and, for once, Wikipedia also seems to have all the info on all the cases currently filed challenging Obama's citizenship. 

I have no doubt that there'll be more, since he's not a _Repulican_, his last name rhymes with _Osama_, his middle name is _Hussein_, and *he's black*, and I don't think any of those things are going to change in the next four years.....:lfao:


----------



## Gordon Nore (Feb 26, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Phil Berg, world class nutjob and litigious git, was a Hillary supporter who brought suit back in August 2008, which was pretty much rejected by the Supreme Court, and sits in a Third District Court of Appeals limbo..... Several other suits have been filed, but the chief obstacle to them has been lack of standing: none of the litigants was actually running for President, or a member of the Electoral College, except for Alan Keyes, who filed a suit in Nov, 2008.


 
I'm familiar with the story from the other thread we had on this subject. I had the pleasure of reading up on Mr Berg at the time. My question had to do with Seacher's comment:



> I try to remind everyone when they bring up the party thing that it was HIS party that first launched the investigation.


 
I was trying to query Seacrher on what investigation he was talking about, unless he was simply referring to Berg's ill-fated suit. Your post above clarifies that -- no one who's requested the President Obama's documents has the standing to ask for them, so, on that level, there hasn't been an investigation. Thanks, Elder.



> I have no doubt that there'll be more, since he's not a _Repulican_, his last name rhymes with _Osama_, his middle name is _Hussein_, and *he's black*, and I don't think any of those things are going to change in the next four years.....:lfao:


 
Word.


----------



## crushing (Feb 26, 2009)

Maybe Madam Secretary Clinton can make a call to Madman Superfan Berg and ask him to please just MoveOn?


----------



## elder999 (Feb 26, 2009)

StrongFighter said:


> Now it is U.S. Armed Forces personnel wanting to know if his birth certificate is that of a U.S. born citizen  on pain of court-martial  to know that Obama is eligible.
> 
> How more patriotic can you get than that ?
> 
> Blessed be Lieutenant Scott Easterling's name and memory forever for challenging the POTUS on pain of court martial. .


 
Well, that's sort of like the "moral stand" taken by hundreds of soldiers that refuse orders to Iraq......_totally illegal._


----------



## jarrod (Feb 27, 2009)

edited for discretion.

jf


----------



## firerex (Mar 3, 2009)

AMEN soldier


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 3, 2009)

Barack Obama is my President.  I did not vote for him, and I'm not altogether happy about it, but he is the duly-elected President of the United States.  He is also a natural-born citizen.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

I regard this as fact and not opinion.

Everyone is entitled their own opinions, but I believe the soldier is treading on dangerous ground.  His oath is indeed to the Constitution, but members of the military subject to the UCMJ are not entitled to interpret it as they wish.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 3, 2009)

Elder,
with respect, i think you are wrong when you say it is about race.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 3, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Elder,
> with respect, i think you are wrong when you say it is about race.



I agree with you, but not completely.  I think it is impossible to rule out race as a factor in all cases.  You know as well as I that there are going to be some nut cases who will hold THAT against him no matter what.

In this case, I think the major contributing factor is just the general rancor that exists between the parties.  The sheer hatred on both sides is completely irrational.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 3, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Elder,
> with respect, i think you are wrong when you say it is about race.


 
Well, of course you do.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 3, 2009)

come on Elder, you know me better than that. That was dismissive and condescending. You are better than that, and you KNOW I aint like that.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 3, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> I agree with you, but not completely. I think it is impossible to rule out race as a factor in all cases. You know as well as I that there are going to be some nut cases who will hold THAT against him no matter what.
> 
> In this case, I think the major contributing factor is just the general rancor that exists between the parties. The sheer hatred on both sides is completely irrational.


 
Agreed. And, as a fellow North American, I would add, here: It's either never about race, or it's always about race. 

In this instance, yep, race is a factor. This is an example of the second tier citizenship of people of colour in North America. Because I am Caucasion, people don't ask me where I'm from, and how I define myself nationally is never questioned. The President is black and is automatically from someplace else. I believe Senator McCain was born abroad on a military base.

Who's demaning his birth certifcate? Nobody. McCain is white and sounds American.

Who's asking for Mr Obama's papers? Well, nobody who has the right to demand them. Phil Berg's name came up -- Phil Berg has no standing to demand anybody's papers. 

This LT who's challenging the President. Somehow he has more credibility because he's got a couple of butter bars on his shoulders? Hell, no. He's supposed to defend a Constitution based on personal liberty, and so he has no credibility in demanding to see the 'papers' of a fellow US citizen -- Presdent or otherwise.


----------



## Carol (Mar 3, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> Agreed. And, as a fellow North American, I would add, here: It's either never about race, or it's always about race.
> 
> In this instance, yep, race is a factor. This is an example of the second tier citizenship of people of colour in North America. Because I am Caucasion, people don't ask me where I'm from, and how I define myself nationally is never questioned. The President is black and is automatically from someplace else. I believe Senator McCain was born abroad on a military base.
> 
> Who's demaning his birth certifcate? Nobody. McCain is white and sounds American.



That's actually not the case Gordon.  Plenty of people did question Senator McCain. He had a senatorial hearing to determine his eligibility to run for president.  The reason why there was not a huge outcry about it was because OPM did their job.  The background check raised a flag for McCain that wasn't raised for Obama, and our government did its proper follow up by brining the matter before a hearing.


I don't think its all about race. I know there are plenty of people out there with racial issues, but there are also folks that are just as rabid about politics.  And there are also folks that have their own motives.  Mr. Berg made no secret of being a fervent Hillary supporter but he's also the kind of attorney that takes on lawsuits for the publicity.  We're too large and too diverse of a people for a one-size-fits all reason. :asian:


----------



## elder999 (Mar 3, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> come on Elder, you know me better than that. That was dismissive and condescending. You are better than that, and you KNOW I aint like that.


 

Better than what?

Seriously, don't intend anything dismissive of condescending, and don't mean to make it personal, but you've as much as said in the past that if I told you the sky was blue you'd have to check for yourself..:lfao:

I mean, when _don't_ you think I'm wrong?

In any case, see this video of Phil Berg explaining his "case". Pay special attention about 5:40 in. Before you do that, though, ask yourself:

_Why does Barack Obama have to *hide* his "Muslim background?"_ Why is there so much discussion about whether he's "black" or "half-black " (_which half? :lfao: ) or why no one calls him "half-white?"_

I'm not calling Berg a racist, and I don't believe that his motivations are racist. However, a great deal of the interest in all this....._stuff_...is racist. Case in point, the comments on that youtube video_:_



> _There's an excellent comparison between Hitler's speech in the parade grounds at Nürnberg and *Osambo's* narcissistic Invesco and Grant Park foolishness._
> 
> _The mudshark thing really messes with Obongo's head. ........... Being disturbed with abandonment issues doubled with his tramp mammy cooing her deviance to her own child, ......._


 
These go on in a similar vein for _pages_-though mostly from the same three or four people, and I've been really discreet in what I quoted-see for yourself. While those people aren't directly involved in the suits, _*they are the people those actions are meant to arouse.*_ Why? Well, to keep people distracted from the real things they need to be concerned about as far as Obama goes. It doesn't matter if he was or wasn't a Muslim, or if he'll release his college papers, and the OPM *knows* he's a natural born citizen. What matters is that he can accomplish his agenda while people are distracted by B.S. like this.......

If people are distracted by their fear of him: fear that he's a closet Muslim, that he's some sort of non-citizen "Manchurian Negro," that he's an Arab, that he's a Marxist, then they pay less attention to the real issues.....


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 3, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> That's actually not the case Gordon.  Plenty of people did question Senator McCain. He had a senatorial hearing to determine his eligibility to run for president.  The reason why there was not a huge outcry about it was because OPM did their job.  The background check raised a flag for McCain that wasn't raised for Obama, and our government did its proper follow up by brining the matter before a hearing.



My passion for liberty -- Liberty! Hell, I'm not even American -- got the better of me. I stand corrected on the matter of John McCain's eligibility, and I thank you for your clarification. I had not known it was ever an issue. :asian:

McCain's documentation, as you report, was asked for and vetted by the proper authorities. What I'm getting at is, he didn't have to pull out his wallet and show his birth certificate to some nimrod with blog.

OPM?



> I don't think its all about race. I know there are plenty of people out there with racial issues, but there are also folks that are just as rabid about politics.  And there are also folks that have their own motives.  Mr. Berg made no secret of being a fervent Hillary supporter but he's also the kind of attorney that takes on lawsuits for the publicity.  We're too large and too diverse of a people for a one-size-fits all reason. :asian:



I don't presume that all Americans who oppose the President are racist. I don't assume that everyone who voted from his is not a racist. Opposing ones leader is a sign of healthy functional democracy. Lots of people seem to dislike him because of his leftward drift from Capitalism. A lot of folks don't like him cuz he's smart. A margin of the population would like to burn a cross on the White House lawn, and then there are those who wouldn't do that, but they might toast a marshmallow for the occasion. 

What I find disturbing about the birth certificate discussion is the way it balances against something like the vast outrage over Walmart and other retailers stopping shoppers and making them prove they haven't stolen anything.  On that thread, the righteous indignation is piled high and deep. I know cuz I helped to pile it. http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73478&highlight=Walmart

So, to me, it's very much the same thing. I do not acknowledge the right of the Best Buy guy with the hilighter to examine my property. The President of the United States hasn't yielded his birth certificate to a bunch of people who don't have the standing to demand it.

Next we'll be hearing from the Octomom on Obama's citizenship.

It makes all the sense in the world to me that Obama should do nothing that even implies that he is acquiescing to Berg or to any other numbskull who is seeking attention. Obama can't be seen blinking. He can't afford it. As Aaron has pointed out in two different threads, the President has been cleared. He's the boss. If there is to be a public disclosure of Obama's creds, it has to be done the way it was done with McCain.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 3, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> OPM?.


 
_Office of Personnel Management_. The federal dipwads we call _Revenge of the "C" Student_. Diligent investigators who determine that you are who you say you are, cam do what you say you can do, have been where you say you've been, pay the people who say that you owe them, pay your taxes (???!?!!!), don't drink too much, don't hang out with foreign  parties of adverse interest, don't use illegal drugs, don't beat your wife, don't etc., etc., etc.....the same ones that would have raised holy hell within the first weeks of 2008 if they'd caught even a hint of impropriety in terms of Obama's being born- as everyone seems to accept but the truly rabid and crazy-*in Hawaii*.


----------



## jarrod (Mar 3, 2009)

i enlisted in the marine corps after 9/11.  when they announced we would be going to iraq, i found a way out of the military.  it was a moral choice because i didn't feel right about staying in.  but it was illegal & i took my lumps for it.  

whether this guy is standing by his conscience or not, he's breaking the law.  

jf


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 3, 2009)

elder999 said:


> _Office of Personnel Management_. The federal dipwads we call _Revenge of the "C" Student_.



I should have remembered that colourful metaphor. Thanks.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 3, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> I should have remembered that colourful metaphor. Thanks.


 
It's not a metaphor. Most of us were at least B+ students. Most of us went to excellent if not top tier schools. Most of us make well over $80,000/yr. Most of them _were_ C students. Most of them didn't go to the best of schools, and are retired law enforcement of one sort or another. Most of them make between 50 and 80k/yr. 

There's more than a little resentment from both sides. They have power over us for a short time, and like using it. We make more than we do, and don't think much of them or the intrusion on our lives, even though it's exactly what we signed up for. They like to intimate that they'll use any little idiosyncracy (_What, you don't socialize with your neighbors??! What do you mean, you don't *have* neighbors??!!!_! :lfao to keep us from getting or keeping our clearance. A lot of us make it really clear that we don't want them in our homes, or talking to our friends, or anything like that, and we're only putting up with it because we have to. Which, apparently, is better than asking them to sit down for dinner, like I did 10 years ago......:lfao:


----------



## BrandonLucas (Mar 5, 2009)

I'm throwing my .02 in...and I don't really care how "politically sound" this post is or isn't...

This whole thread is the biggest crock of b.s. I have seen in a while.  Obama is President of the United States of America.  Has been for a few weeks now.  It's really been too early to tell if he's going to screw up or be the next messiah.

To any of you arguing over the man's creds:  seriously, stop.  It's coming across like you all are a bunch of whiners because the dude won the election, and now you're nit-picking at the least little thing you can find to discredit him.

I'm not waving some huge Obama flag here, and I can certainly tell you that I did not vote for either him or McCain...I wrote in my own candidate....so I did at least vote.  But this whole situation is just plain stupid.

And why even argue over it?  This thread is already, what, 6 freakin' pages long?  Full of nothing but "patriotic reasoning"?

I don't care if it is race related.  I don't care if it is not race related.  I don't care if it is because he's a dem.  I don't care if it's because he's not a republican.

*THE GUY IS THE LEADER OF THE F'ING COUNTRY YOU LIVE AND BREATHE IN.  EITHER STAND BEHIND THE DECISION THAT WAS MADE BY DEMOCRACY OR MOVE.*


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 5, 2009)

*Bob Hauk*: There was an accident. About an hour ago, a small jet went down inside New York City. The President was on board. 
*Snake Plissken*resident of what? 
_--Escape From New York_


----------



## jetboatdeath (Mar 5, 2009)

> *THE GUY IS THE LEADER OF THE F'ING COUNTRY YOU LIVE AND BREATHE IN. EITHER STAND BEHIND THE DECISION THAT WAS MADE BY DEMOCRACY OR MOVE.*


 
Yea get in line, forget the Constitution, do what you are told pay for your neighbors health care and mortgage, don't question trillions of dollars that we don't have being spent, and for gods sake don't look behind the curtain... 

We are not a democracy, never have been. 
Our Country was built on questioning the politicians, disagreements and discussion. THEY ARE SUPOSED TO REPRESENT US.
This bull **** of party line politics has gone on long enough.
Saying because he is or isn't something and tossing the race card then saying you are not a Lib...I pee'd my pants a little... 
It is because he is destroying this nation. 
So if you don't like it SPEAK UP!!! And If you who posted the big bold opinion don't like people speaking up maybe your choice of a place to live might need a quick review.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 5, 2009)

BrandonLucas said:


> I'm throwing my .02 in...
> *THE GUY IS THE LEADER OF THE F'ING COUNTRY YOU LIVE AND BREATHE IN.  EITHER STAND BEHIND THE DECISION THAT WAS MADE BY DEMOCRACY OR MOVE.*



Hmmm. I certainly agree that the breathless conspiracies about your President's lineage are laughable. It's a very silly distraction when people are losing their livelihood and their health care, and there's wars going on.

But the love-it-or-leave-it sentiment, which I hear plenty of here in Canada, is something else. For eight years the Province of Ontario was ruled by a grunting oaf named Mike Harris, who trashed public and secondary education, threw welfare recipients to the streets, and devastated the public sector with tens of thousands of lay-offs. People would say to me, "He got elected fair and square, so you have to accept it." Hell no, I don't. But if I'm gonna be critical, I should be making substantial thoughtful criticisms.

President Obama's policy decisions (while coming from the polar opposite of former Premier Harris' side of the political ledger) are nonetheless sweeping, complicated, and very, very expensive. It would be really great if his critics practised a little critical analysis and went after him on that basis. The birth certificate fanatics are giving him a free ride -- the more they talk about nonsense, the less they're talking about substance. But, then again, bullshart baffles brains.

I think if people in the USA don't like the President's policies, they don't have to go any place, and your constitution, like mine, would agree. Further, that same Constitution, like mine, enshrines the right of citizens to tell their leader that he's full of shart, and then they really should say why.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 5, 2009)

jetboatdeath said:


> Our Country was built on questioning the politicians, disagreements and discussion.




Ideally, yes, but that's not how it's practised on the ground, is it?

Except when libruls criticized the War in Iraq, they were hurting morale of the troops, at least according to Rummy. If I had a nickel (even a Canadian nickel) for every time I heard a conservative Republican say, "We gotta support the President in this terrible time." What they don't see -- what partisans don't see -- is if you give power to a politician you like, some day another guy that you don't like is gonna have the same power. 




> This bull **** of party line politics has gone on long enough.[/QUOTE]
> 
> Say, since last January? Just a guess.
> 
> ...


----------



## jetboatdeath (Mar 5, 2009)

> FWIW, I agree. You should speak up if you don't like what your leader is doing. People who agree with Mr Obama might even hear counter arguments if they weren't accomanied with character assassination, fist-pounding, and hyperbole ('He's destroying our country.').


 
Your point is taked but this happens with EVERY administration, how many years of Bush bashing did we have? Give me a break I bitched about Bush as well. And Obama has done more to destroy this nation than others, every time he opens his mouth the dow plummits, thats a fact...



> > This bull **** of party line politics has gone on long enough.[/QUOTE]
> >
> > Say, since last January? Just a guess.
> 
> ...


----------



## arnisador (Mar 5, 2009)

jetboatdeath said:


> Yea get in line, forget the Constitution



The point is not that this was _never_ a valid consitutional question...it's that eventually, as with Bush-Gore in 200, the country must have closure and more forward.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Mar 6, 2009)

jetboatdeath said:


> Yea get in line, forget the Constitution, do what you are told pay for your neighbors health care and mortgage, don't question trillions of dollars that we don't have being spent, and for gods sake don't look behind the curtain...
> 
> We are not a democracy, never have been.
> Our Country was built on questioning the politicians, disagreements and discussion. THEY ARE SUPOSED TO REPRESENT US.
> ...


 
Wow...I see you've put a lot of thought into this post...



> We are not a democracy, never have been.


 
I know I slept through highschool, but I seem to remember someone somewhere saying something about our form of government being a democracy...:idunno:




> Our Country was built on questioning the politicians, disagreements and discussion. THEY ARE SUPOSED TO REPRESENT US.


 
Agreed.  But the big difference is that the questioning, disagreements and discussions should eventually lead to a solution to a problem...which is what I fail to see anywhere in the posts in this thread...instead of finding a solution to the problem and acting on it, all I'm seeing is a bunch of bitching and moaning...




> This bull **** of party line politics has gone on long enough.


 
Agree here too.  I think the whole idea of democratic vs. republican is the biggest waste of time ever.  It all boils down to people who attempt to gain office to become self serving...



> Saying because he is or isn't something and tossing the race card then saying you are not a Lib...I pee'd my pants a little...


 
I personally don't care what color the guy is, or what color you are, for that matter.  He was voted to be the President of the United States...not that I voted for him, and I'm just venturing a guess that you didn't vote for him either...but the fact remains that he is in office right now.  Crying about it now and trying to grasp onto last ditch efforts to boot him from office is pretty pathetic.  Want him out of office?  Stop whining about it and *do* something about it.



> I pee'd my pants a little...


 
So I guess you're just going to complain about the fact that you did until someone changes your pants for you...



> It is because he is destroying this nation.


 
Yep.  In the month and a half that Obama has been the President, he has single-handedly destroyed everything that Bush worked so hard to accomplish in his 8 years in term.  Get a grip.  It's not all Obama...it's all of the elected officials that we, collectively, put into office...which, last time I checked, was a part of democracy... 



> So if you don't like it SPEAK UP!!!


 
I think there's been enough speaking up to last a couple of lifetimes...like I keep stating, talk is cheap.  STFU, get out of your computer chair, put the bag of chips down, put on something besides pajama pants, and *do* something.



> And If you who posted the big bold opinion don't like people speaking up maybe your choice of a place to live might need a quick review.


 
Yeah, I said it.  Maybe it's just me, but people who are all talk and no action just seem to get on my nerves.  I don't need to review my choice of a place to live...I'm not the one who is playing the "keyboard warrior" role.  "Whaaa, the economy is going down the tube!....Whaaa, the President is a guy I don't like!...Whaaa, I peed myself and I'm just going to sit in it and complain about it!....."

Threads like this solve nothing about the state of the economy.  Want to help the situation?  Write your congressman about your concerns.  That's what they're there for...you even said it...they work for us...so make them work.  Don't think you're getting the results you want from your congressman?  Write him again, Skippy!

See a pattern here?

It's not that hard...in fact, if everyone that has posted with their complaints put that kind of energy into trying to make the government work for you, then maybe, just maybe, something would get done.

Until you're willing to roll your sleeves up and get your hands dirty....here's a big, bold comment for you....

*STFU*


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 6, 2009)

Brandon - its easy to get on a high horse and start telling people to get up and do something, but I think if you knew a little more about the nature of this problem, you'd be a tad more conservative (small c).  Obama and Bush are and were both figureheads for a powerful cadre of financial interests that basically run both parties.  If that sounds a little paranoid, I suggest talking and listening to what people on both sides are saying.  The similarities are not coincidence.  Then go out and learn as much as you can.  As evil often does, this revolves around money.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 6, 2009)

*Brandon*, whilst I admire it when a person has strong opinions and is able to articulate them well, allowing that strength of view to erode into a somewhat too direct four-letter-abbreviation undermines the effectiveness of the whole effort.

Those members who have been here a while know that permitting your passions to pollute your message with blatant personal attacks or insidious insults will eventually lead to action that may well end the 'conversation' prematurely.

That would be a shame as threads like this allow people to vent off their less sensible or more volatile fears and opinions in a relatively harmless way.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Mar 6, 2009)

I appologize for sounding so harsh, and I agree I could have worded that much better...so my appologies there.

And I certainly don't know enough to debate the actual topic at hand, so I agree there as well...

The thing is, I'm not actually debating the topic at hand...what I tried to say and didn't say well enough is that simply debating the issue isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

Some kind of action needs to be taken by someone...I'm certainly not the guy, because of my lack of experience and knowledge...but this issue is no different than any other issue that is not political.

Say, for instance, your car breaks down on the side of the road.  Is it frustrating?  Yes, very.  Is it unfortunate?  You better believe it is.  Will sitting behind the wheel of the car and talking about how frustrated you are solve the problem?  No.  Not at all.

It would be much more productive to get out of the car, try to figure out why the car broke down, and if you aren't able to figure it out, then call someone else to come help you figure it out.  Once the problem has been located, start trying to repair the problem.  Alot of times, you may not be able to do this on your own, and you would need some help from someone else...possibly someone more knowlegable, or possibly someone with more tools, or even both...but you repair the problem, and make your car drivable again.

That's basically what I'm saying here.  If Obama is not a naturally born US citizen, then someone needs to prove that he isn't, rather than wait on him to prove that he is.  The burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the accused.

If the economy is going down the toilet, rather than post thread after thread about how much is sucks, why not post thread after thread of great advice on how to save a little money here and there?  Or how to start trying to rebuild the economy?  And if any resolution is found there, why not send it to a state representative?

I do appologize for coming across as heated as I did.  It is, admittedly, a pet peeve of mine for people to be all talk and no action.  I should have worded what I posted better...so feel free to delete that previous post if need be.


----------



## searcher (Mar 6, 2009)

Here is an update on the subject at hand.



> *Officer Calls Obama 'Usurper' President*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Read the article here: http://www.military.com/news/articl...-president.html?col=1186032325324&ESRC=dod.nl


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 6, 2009)

BrandonLucas said:


> ..I appologize for sounding so harsh, and I agree I could have worded that much better...so my appologies there.
> 
> And I certainly don't know enough to debate the actual topic at hand, so I agree there as well...
> 
> The thing is, I'm not actually debating the topic at hand...what I tried to say and didn't say well enough is that simply debating the issue isn't going to get anyone anywhere...


 

Brandon,

I share many of your sentiments generally, except for the abbreviated cuss, which I would be more apt to use unabbreviated and face-to-face, when called-for.

This conflict that you find yourself in is a very good example of the distraction that the birth certificiate embroglio has spawned. As I've said above, there are valid criticisms to be made of any leader by anybody, whether they voted for him or not, whether they belong to the same party or not. 

I can relate to some of what you're saying. Pierre Elliot Trudeau was the Liberal Part Prime Minister of Canada for much early life. He was the PM I grew up with. Then he was defeated and served as Official Opposition leader, then resigned, and then made a comeback to the PMO. I never voted for him -- my politics are left of the Liberal Party of Canada. 

My mom just hated the man. She was in a state of rage from from April 20, 1968 to June 4, 1979, and from March 3, 1980 to June 30, 1984. "
Damnit, Gordie, the man's a Socialist, and he's robbing us blind." As I got older, I used point out that I was more of a Socialist myself. Anyhow, I thought that was an awfully long time to be upset.

Then I lived through the Mike Harris years in Ontario and learned what it was like to be profoundly POd at a government leader.

Nonetheless, you and others have question how the President could possibly have ruined the country in a couple of months. That honeymoon usually ends pretty quick. We all bemoan how politicians get nasty in a very short time.

Here's another thought: Obama's been President for less than three months and already Americans are not talking to each other. They're shouting at eachother. And they're not getting angry as Americans with a shared history and vision; they're getting angry as Partisans and idealogues with consciously divisive agendas.

It's not just them, the politicians, and the sleazeballs who bankroll them. It's us.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 6, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> Here's another thought: Obama's been President for less than three months and already Americans are not talking to each other. They're shouting at eachother. And they're not getting angry as Americans with a shared history and vision; they're getting angry as Partisans and idealogues with consciously divisive agendas.



Don't allow what you see here or on the cable shoutfest shows to cloud your vision.  What you can see online or on TV is only one small slice, and the volume is turned up very high.  Opinion polls covering the entire country show a pretty reasonable level of support and agreement for what is going on now politically.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 6, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Don't allow what you see here or on the cable shoutfest shows to cloud your vision. What you can see online or on TV is only one small slice, and the volume is turned up very high. Opinion polls covering the entire country show a pretty reasonable level of support and agreement for what is going on now politically.


 
Point well taken, EH. I've not travelled to your sunny shores in a few years. CNN is bad for my perceptions.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 6, 2009)

> "Until Mr. Obama releases a 'vault copy' of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office -- an impostor," 1st Lt. Scott R. Easterling states in his letter published at Defendourfreedoms.com.


 
What a Narcissist. It really is a silly story.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 6, 2009)

BrandonLucas said:


> I know I slept through highschool, but I seem to remember someone somewhere saying something about our form of government being a democracy...:idunno:



Technically, no, the USA is not a *democracy*.  The actual definition of a democracy is 'government by the people', and although the government's power begins 'from the people', the people do not exercise day-to-day control over the government.

What we have is a *representative republic*.  We vote for leaders, and those leaders in turn run the country.  We divide power between three branches of government to maintain a system of checks and balances so that no one branch of government ends up with a monopoly on power.

Our elected representatives are supposed to represent their constituents, but in practice, they exercise whatever power they hold as they wish.  Ideally, those who displease a majority of voters do not get reelected.

With regard to the President, we are even less a democracy, as we vote for the President directly, but majority vote is not what elects - it is the electoral college votes amassed by states, who are generally compelled to vote as their state's dictate.

The only time we see direct democracy in the USA is when we hold referendum votes or plebiscites.  This type of vote is generally seen at the state level, and may be required for state constitutions to be altered.

A recent example of direct democracy would be the "Prop 8" results in California, which resulted in overturning the legality of 'Gay Marriage'.  The California Supreme Court is currently considering challenges to the new law, but it is reported that they are leaning in favor of accepting the "Will of the People" as the law of the state in this case.

Democracy in its pure form is sometimes referred to as '*mob rule*' and undesirable simply because it leads to governments being pulled back and forth based on the whims of the masses on any given day.

All in all, I'm fond of our form of government, imperfect though it is.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Mar 6, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Don't allow what you see here or on the cable shoutfest shows to cloud your vision. What you can see online or on TV is only one small slice, and the volume is turned up very high. Opinion polls covering the entire country show a pretty reasonable level of support and agreement for what is going on now politically.


 
I can vouch for this much...I live in South GA...and around here, Obama catches a bunch of racial junk. Most people around here don't know anything about him...just that he's the first black president.

The redneck and old-white-folks crowd around here hate him because he's a black guy trying to make things change, and the vast majority of the black crowd love him simply because he is black.

There is a store in the town I live in that actually specializes in Obama shirts. All I hear about all day, walking through the store, is how Obama is going to be passing out checks.

None of this is news to anyone, of course...but it's part of what really irritates me about the situation. I am not forming an opinion about him because I'm still trying to learn about him...I'm just tired of hearing all these other people who don't know anything about him either saying he's the next messiah or the next satan.

It is pretty hard to get an accurate picture of how things *really* are because of all the bias that is out there...which, of course, makes things really hard for me to understand.

Quite honestly, when I voted, all I knew of either one of Obama and McCain was that they were really, really bad at answering direct questions....so I wrote someone else in. I don't honestly care what either one of them stood for...the fact that neither one of them would ever get down to business in the questions that were asked during the debates really bothered me. 

It's awful hard to form an opinion about the politics when you can't get the real picture.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Mar 6, 2009)

Brandon
Apologies accepted. You are certainly a fired up individual and that in my book is good regardless if I agree with you or not.
Yes there is a proper way to complain contacting State reps, and congress men Senators. But being that I am from Illinois it is pointless.
If you do not agree with Chicago rule in Illinois you have no voice. Look at the news of late. Every day you see something about Burris, Blogo, Quinn, Jody Weise
Chicago rules this state and we all know the state of Chicago, we in Illinois know that Obama did nothing as a senator.
He has just set a budget for 2010 that is more than all others combined. Has nothing to do with political affiliation, race, color of his pants. It is the fact that we dont have a 3rd of the money he is asking for and getting. He said he will have the national debt cut in half by the end of his first term, but if he has to barrow trillions of dollars to do it that is just causing more debt. Just take a closer look every time he asks for more money just ask yourself how is he going to get it?
I now need to go figure out how I am going to use the 13.00 a week "tax cut" he just LOANED us. If you notice you are taxed on that....


----------



## jetboatdeath (Mar 6, 2009)

> Until you're willing to roll your sleeves up and get your hands dirty....here's a big, bold comment for you....


 
I am going to leave the remainder of the quote off because it is rude to say the least. But who is being the keyboard warrior here. I hope you don't act like this in public. Because if you say these things to the wrong people you will pay the price. Be a little nicer it goes a long way.


----------



## searcher (Mar 6, 2009)

So here is a question for you all.

Ask yourself why B.O. does not have a vault copy put out there for public display?    Is he scared of something?     Why does he not put this puppy to rest so we can go on griping about other things he is doing?


Discuss.


----------



## jarrod (Mar 6, 2009)

searcher said:


> So here is a question for you all.
> 
> Ask yourself why B.O. does not have a vault copy put out there for public display? Is he scared of something? Why does he not put this puppy to rest so we can go on griping about other things he is doing?
> 
> ...


 
i'm just speculating here, but i'd say because it's a vaguely racist demand, beneath the president's dignity to deal with further than he already has, & will do absolutely nothing to quiet those who are that unhappy with his being in office.  

jf


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 6, 2009)

jarrod said:


> ...will do absolutely nothing to quiet those who are that unhappy with his being in office.



I agree.  It would not stop for one instant the chorus of nattering nabobs of negativity.  Let the lawsuits proceed if the courts find they have merit - and whatever comes of that, there you go.

It reminds me very much of the emails I was getting from my ultra-conservative friends and family during the election (and I'm conservative, but I'm not out on that freaky tip with them).

The emails kept pointing out (like we didn't know) that Barack Obama's middle name is...gasp...HUSSEIN!  Yes, Hussein!  What?  A MOSLUM NAME? (sp intentional)  HE MUST BE A DANGED OLD MOSLUM THEN.

Right.

As I pointed out to my brain dead relatives...

1) He didn't name himself at birth.  Did you?

2) If he had changed his name, they'd be venting their spleens about how he was HIDING HIS DANGED OLD MOSLUM NAME.  So that's kind of a no-win proposition, huh?

3) They didn't seem to have a problem with Mohammad Ali or Kareem Abdul Jabbar, but they have a problem with Barack Hussein Obama?  I guess it's OK if you're a big ol black probably MOSLUM basketball star in the NBA, but not if you're going to lead the country.  But we're not RACIST or anything, huh?

One of those friend's first name is Patrick.  I told him that's a Catholic name, he must be Catholic.  He said no, Patrick is just a name, it's not a "Catholic" name.  I said if he didn't want to be called a Catholic, he'd better change it to Lyndon or something equally Protestant-sounding.  He said he would never change his name just because I thought it sounded Catholic.  Hmmm.  But Barack Obama should change his middle name because is is "MOSLUM" and that means he must be one, and furthermore he must change it or you'll think he's a MOSLUM forever, right?  What's that I smell...sniff...sniff...yep, smells like hypocrisy.  Ah, with a side-order of racism.  Lovely.


----------



## arnisador (Mar 7, 2009)

searcher said:


> Ask yourself why B.O. does not have a vault copy put out there for public display?    Is he scared of something?     Why does he not put this puppy to rest



I'm guessing his lawyers have advised him that no amount of proof will convince the conspiracy theorists who are still standing, so he might as well stop here.

Meanwhile, back to the faked moon landings...


----------



## CuongNhuka (Mar 8, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Over here to get into school, college etc plus get your National Insurance number, pay your income tax and all those official things you have to have proof of who you are and these all demand a birth certificate. I can't imagine it's different in America so surely if Obama wasn't US born someone from his past if not many would have said before now that he wasn't born in the USA?


 
Thing is, you don't actually have to be born in the US to be eligible. Both his parents are US born (I believe), so, even if he was born in Kenya (or where ever), it wouldn't be that big of a deal, since he would still be eligible. There is a whole bunch of legal mess in this, but, long story short, you could be born outside the US and still be fine.
Side note, W. held one elected position before he ran for President. Governor of Texas. One term. Now who's unqualified?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 8, 2009)

CuongNhuka said:


> Thing is, you don't actually have to be born in the US to be eligible.



With a few exceptions, yes you do.  The law says 'natural born citizen'.



> Both his parents are US born (I believe), so, even if he was born in Kenya (or where ever), it wouldn't be that big of a deal, since he would still be eligible.



Barack Obama's father was not a US citizen, and was both born and a citizen of Kenya.

Therefore, if Barack Obama was born outside he US, he would not be a 'natural born' citizen based on current US law.



> There is a whole bunch of legal mess in this, but, long story short, you could be born outside the US and still be fine.



If a person is born to two US citizens outside the US, they are still considered a 'natural born' US citizen.  Senator John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was a US possession at the time, but not part of the USA.  His parents were both US citizens, however, so he is considered a 'natural born' US citizen.

If a child is born inside the USA, they are a US citizen and 'natural born' regardless of the citizenship of their parents, or even their legal status (under current law).

Therefore, the argument is that if President Obama was born outside the USA, he is not entitled to be President, because his father was a Kenyan citizen, not a US citizen.  If he was born inside the USA, he is both a citizen of the USA and 'natural born', regardless of his father's citizenship.

Barack Obama's birth certificate is on file in Hawaii in the proper manner, and has been vetted by sources such as 'factcheck.org', which has also shown newspaper clippings from several Honolulu newspapers which announced the birth.  I am satisfied that Barack Obama is a US citizen, 'natural born' and President of the USA lawfully.

However, if the current lawsuits have merit and go forward and prove otherwise, then things will change.  That's what the legal process is for.


----------



## Ninjamom (Mar 8, 2009)

Actually, as long as *one* of his two parents is an American citizen, and that *one* parent has lived inside the US for at least 2 years since turning 14, the child is automatically a natural-born US citizen.

Since his mother was an American citizen who met these conditions, Barak Obama is a natural-born US citizen, irrespective of the location of his birth.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Mar 8, 2009)

Ninjamom said:


> Actually, as long as *one* of his two parents is an American citizen, and that *one* parent has lived inside the US for at least 2 years since turning 14, the child is automatically a natural-born US citizen.
> 
> Since his mother was an American citizen who met these conditions, Barak Obama is a natural-born US citizen, irrespective of the location of his birth.


 
This shows my understanding of our immigration/naturalization laws. One set of laws I do understand (sort of well) is the UCMJ. I'm pretty sure this soldier could be charged in a couple areas of the UCMJ. Article 134 if nothing else. By the way, that one is basicly a catch all for things military members have done that make there branch/our government look bad. A member of the military claiming that our president cann't be president kinda falls into that area.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 8, 2009)

Ninjamom said:


> Actually, as long as *one* of his two parents is an American citizen, and that *one* parent has lived inside the US for at least 2 years since turning 14, the child is automatically a natural-born US citizen.
> 
> Since his mother was an American citizen who met these conditions, Barak Obama is a natural-born US citizen, irrespective of the location of his birth.



No.  The only law regarding one US citizen parent and one non-citizen parent when the child is born outside the USA says that the non-citizen parent must be a "US person" (whatever that is).  In any case, it says that child is a citizen and does not address whether or not the child is 'natural born'.

In reality, the term 'natural born' is not clearly defined in law, and the courts have hesitated to take it up over the years.  There have been other US Presidents who may have been on possibly 'shaky' grounds vis-a-vis 'natural born' status.

It's not all that clear-cut for a person not born in the USA.  So if Obama was born in the USA (as I believe), it's a non-issue.  If he was born outside the USA, then perhaps, perhaps not.  But one thing that would be a problem - if it is found to be that Obama was born outside the USA, he lied.  That would bother me more than his 'natural born' status.

But I think the whole thing is a fart in a teapot.


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 8, 2009)

CuongNhuka said:


> This shows my understanding of our immigration/naturalization laws. One set of laws I do understand (sort of well) is the UCMJ. I'm pretty sure this soldier could be charged in a couple areas of the UCMJ. Article 134 if nothing else. By the way, that one is basicly a catch all for things military members have done that make there branch/our government look bad. A member of the military claiming that our president cann't be president kinda falls into that area.



Cuong,

You are definitely right that he will be hit with 134 - the General Article.  But that will be the least of his worries.  In most courts martial, the general article will be added, right along with conduct unbecoming (in his case, since he's an officer, that's 133).  You need a pretty solid list of offenses to nail someone and no JAG would ever bring a court martial based solely on 134, but 133 and 134 are used as "tack-on" articles to catch anything else and the beef up the case....and in many courts martial, if the offender is acquitted of the other articles, he/she will almost ALWAYS be found guilty of 133 and 134.  Because honestly.....if you are being brought before a court martial, you've done something wrong.  Because of our internal checks and balances, our natural escalation of admin action and multiple layers of leadership, wrongful accusations are very rare.  If you have done anything, 133 and 134 are a sure bet.  They just aren't very strong punishments.

His biggest problem and the article of which he is in direct violation is 88 - Contempt toward officials.  This is the exact reason why it is illegal... "[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Any           commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President,           the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary           of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor           or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession           in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial       may direct."  That is a sure bet too.

The rest that I've listed below depend on just how far he's gone with this whole deal.  If he is refusing to honor the president's authority and rank, he could possibly interpret any order given by any commissioned officer as unjust.  So if he has disobeyed ANY order or refused to do anything as a result of this, he is in much bigger trouble.  As officers, our commissions are issued directly by the POTUS, meaning an officer's authority flows from the constitution through the president.  We support and defend the constitution, our Commander in Chief issues his orders based on the constitution. 
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Article 88. Contempt toward officials.
[/FONT]Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.    
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Article 89. Disrespect toward superior commissioned officer.
[/FONT]Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.   
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Article 90. Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer.     [/FONT]
     (2) _Willfully disobeying a lawful order of superior commissioned officer_. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.        (3) _In time of war_. Death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.   
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Article 92. Failure to obey order or regulation.
[/FONT]1) _Violation or failure to obey lawful general order or regulation_. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.        (2) _Violation of failure to obey other lawful order_. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.   
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Article 94. Mutiny or sedition.
[/FONT]For all offenses under Article 94, death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.  
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Article 133. Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.
[/FONT]Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for a period not in excess of that authorized for the most analogous (similar) offense for which a punishment is prescribed in this Manual, or, if none is prescribed, for 1 year. 
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Article 134. General Article.[/FONT]  Section 12 - Disloyal statements
      Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 3 years.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 9, 2009)

Wow.  That seems like an awful mess.  I wonder if we'll ever know how deep this guy gets charged.  Considering the whole matter, it seems like a steep price to pay for a silly political point...


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 9, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Wow. That seems like an awful mess. I wonder if we'll ever know how deep this guy gets charged. Considering the whole matter, it seems like a steep price to pay for a silly political point...


 
It is possible, since there has been media coverage, but generally you would never hear about a court martial or the sentence.  We just kind of take care of it and don't bother telling the public.  It is better that way!  It may be available though, since he is already public.  There will probably be a PA release after the fact.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 9, 2009)

Right or wrong, moral stand or not, I'm seein' the Big Chicken Dinner in this guy's future at this point.......


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 9, 2009)

I have to wonder if the guy thought about going to prison over this?  In these times, it seems like political issues and people are all based off of emotion and this just smacks of a very irrational decision.  I hate to see someone's life get ruined, but if other people can look at this and just calm down a little bit and think clearly, then maybe there is a silver lining.


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 9, 2009)

Honestly, I have no sympathy for him.  As Andy said, right or wrong, the guy is in trouble.  He knew the rules, he violated them.  John, you're right, it is a purely emotional issue and he is too small and petty to see past his own political affiliations and opinions.  No matter what you think of the man, he is now the CinC and thereby our boss.  Get over it....especially as a soldier - as an OFFICER.  You have a duty to follow his lead and respect his position and authority.  

If you noticed, the maximum punishment for some of the possible offenses is death.  While I certainly don't think he will get that sentence....it shows just how serious the military is about disobeying orders or making disloyal statement about the POTUS, PARTICULARLY in a time of war.

This entire election process and aftermath has made me lose a great deal of faith in the public.  I am shocked every day by people blatant lack of objectivity and inability to get past their entrenched ideas.  Wishing the failure of the administration is the most disappointing thing that I have heard in my adult life.


----------



## Ninjamom (Mar 9, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No. The only law regarding one US citizen parent and one non-citizen parent when the child is born outside the USA says that the non-citizen parent must be a "US person" (whatever that is). In any case, it says that child is a citizen and does not address whether or not the child is 'natural born'.
> 
> In reality, the term 'natural born' is not clearly defined in law,...


 
Re-quoted from US Code:



> *USC Title 8 Ch 12 SC III Pt I S. 1401 a and g*
> _The following shall be *nationals* *and* *citizens* of the United States *at birth:
> *
> (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
> ...




_It couldn't be clearer - irregardless of the laws at the time of Obama's birth, the law as of 1994 and forward declares him to be a US Citizen at birth._


----------



## BrandonLucas (Mar 10, 2009)

MBuzzy said:


> Honestly, I have no sympathy for him. As Andy said, right or wrong, the guy is in trouble. He knew the rules, he violated them. John, you're right, it is a purely emotional issue and he is too small and petty to see past his own political affiliations and opinions. No matter what you think of the man, he is now the CinC and thereby our boss. Get over it....especially as a soldier - as an OFFICER. You have a duty to follow his lead and respect his position and authority.
> 
> If you noticed, the maximum punishment for some of the possible offenses is death. While I certainly don't think he will get that sentence....it shows just how serious the military is about disobeying orders or making disloyal statement about the POTUS, PARTICULARLY in a time of war.
> 
> This entire election process and aftermath has made me lose a great deal of faith in the public. I am shocked every day by people blatant lack of objectivity and inability to get past their entrenched ideas. Wishing the failure of the administration is the most disappointing thing that I have heard in my adult life.


 
This pretty much says it all for me.  If there were valid proof that Obama were not a natural born citizen, then by all means, let's have a trial and find out what the truth is, and why it was ignored through the entire election.

What bothers me is that this guy is willing to burn for something he has no proof of...and it's not like he's willing to go down for a belief, either.  He is basically doing the same thing as if he were to approach the CEO of some huge company and accuse them of stealing company funds, but has no proof to back it up.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 10, 2009)

MBuzzy said:


> Cuong,
> 
> You are definitely right that he will be hit with 134 - the General Article. But that will be the least of his worries. In most courts martial, the general article will be added, right along with conduct unbecoming (in his case, since he's an officer, that's 133). You need a pretty solid list of offenses to nail someone and no JAG would ever bring a court martial based solely on 134, but 133 and 134 are used as "tack-on" articles to catch anything else and the beef up the case....and in many courts martial, if the offender is acquitted of the other articles, he/she will almost ALWAYS be found guilty of 133 and 134. Because honestly.....if you are being brought before a court martial, you've done something wrong. Because of our internal checks and balances, our natural escalation of admin action and multiple layers of leadership, wrongful accusations are very rare. If you have done anything, 133 and 134 are a sure bet. They just aren't very strong punishments.
> 
> ...


 

Our Armed Forces have similiar rules and regs but if none of them are exactly right, you'll always be done on 'conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline", that's the one that'll get you every time, covers everything!


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 10, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Our Armed Forces have similiar rules and regs but if none of them are exactly right, you'll always be done on 'conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline", that's the one that'll get you every time, covers everything!


 
Not surprising that you do things similarly.  The general article, 134 is a catch all and 133 is the Conduct Unbecoming and Officer and a Gentleman article....which of course can cover just about anything!


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 10, 2009)

In many ways it's an unfair rule, service people who are 'done' in a civilian court are often then charged under that rule!


----------

