Officer calls Obama an "Imposter"

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Using words such as "imposter" and "usurper," an active-duty Army officer in Iraq has joined a California lawyer's lawsuit intended to force President Barack Obama to prove he is a legal U.S. citizen, and therefore able to legally serve as the commander in chief.

"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.

An Army spokesman told Military.com today that officials are aware of Easterling's letter

"We are taking a look at that ourselves right now," Lt. Col. Christopher Garver said. "We are always trying to balance our ... military requirements under the Uniform Code of Military Justice versus critical freedoms that all Americans enjoy."

California dentist turned attorney Orly Taitz, who has brought the lawsuit, told Military.com Tuesday that it is her "understanding that there will not be a serious consequence to his career [for his statements], but I don't know for sure."

"I told him 'you're doing something very brave for this country, and that you can call me any time, 24/7 [for advice],' " she said. "If you're investigated by [the judge advocate general] and if there are any hearings ... and if an officer is defending you, I will provide documents totally proving it's illegitimate for [Obama] to be president."

The story was first reported in the right-leaning World Net Daily news site Feb. 24.

Taitz said she is willing to go to Iraq for Easterling's defense. Her Web site includes names and photos of congressmen and retired service members who she says are supportive of the lawsuit intended to force Obama to present documents showing he is an American citizen.

While Obama has presented a legal Hawaiian birth certificate, Taitz and others claim the state historically has permitted American parents of children born in other countries to apply for such documents. Easterling says he wants to see a "vault copy," which is not explained in his letter but is taken to mean the original document.

In his letter, Easterling said he was a KBR contractor in Iraq in 2005 and 2006, then joined the Army when it raised the maximum enlistment age to 40. He said he attended Officer Candidate School and was commissioned a second lieutenant in August 2007.

After an assignment to Fort Knox, Ky., he was deployed to Balad. He was promoted to first lieutenant on Feb. 2.

He said in his letter that it pains him to join the lawsuit against Obama, "but as an Officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this action."

"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."

Attorney Mathew B. Tully of the Washington, D.C.-based firm Tully Rinckey PLLC, cautioned "that nobody's actually heard directly from this ... lieutenant. We're getting this from a third party with an axe to grind."

It has happened in the past, he said, that stories emerging from the combat theater turn out to be wholly or partially false.

If true, however, Easterling, as an Army officer, "is subject to ... [provisions] against using contemptuous language toward the president." There were such incidents in the 1990s, he said, when service members were disciplined for comments made against President Clinton. In one case brought under the provisions of Article 88 of the UCMJ a major general was forced to retire for comments he made, Tully said.

Easterling also could be charged with conduct unbecoming an officer, he said.

If an officer actually believes there has been some misconduct by the president, Tully said, there are ways he could have responded.

Under Article 138, he said, any person can bring an allegation of misconduct by a commander through the chain of command, "though I don't think [it] has ever been used to allege misconduct by the president."

He may also have tried reporting his allegations under the whistleblower protection act, Tully said. But the Defense Department directive on that spells out the inspector general and the Congress as the places to take allegations, he added.

"People in the military ... have rights protecting them for reporting [alleged] misconduct, but there are strict procedures," Tully explained. "And joining a civil lawsuit and calling the president of the United States an imposter is not one of those avenues."

Tully said there already is extensive case law involving these allegations about Obama's birth and citizenship -- at least 10, he said -- that have been dismissed.

"And on TV last night I saw the chief of staff of the Army salute President Obama, so there are a lot of people who believe he is the president," Tully said.

I think his claims are valid, however, after reading the article, I scrolled down to read the comments. Apparently, many people believe the officer is a racist who should resign his commission and join the KKK.

[TruBlu]

If there is nothing to hide, why not release the document?

As to this officer's alleged statements, it is unbecoming of an officer to say such things while uniformed seeing as though that is a protest, something not allowed by any military person in uniform. Backing this bold statement up:

3.5.6. Off-Post Demonstrations by Members. Members of the Armed Forces are prohibited from participating in off-post demonstrations when they are on-duty, in a foreign country, when their activities constitute a breach of law and order, when violence is likely to result, or when they are in uniform in violation of DoD Directive 1334.1 (reference (d)).

Did this LT say anything like this? We don't know. Will anything come of this suit? Probably not. But in my opinion, the certificate should be released. With that I would be satisfied. Of course Shooter would like a date, time, location, and serial number permanently branded into the man's head as proof lol!

[PhilK]

California dentist turned attorney Orly Taitz, who has brought the lawsuit, told Military.com Tuesday that it is her "understanding that there will not be a serious consequence to his career [for his statements], but I don't know for sure."


Yeah right. His career is over...he just doesn't realize it yet.

[a777pilot]

This is going nowhere rapidly.

This would have to be adjudicated in a Federal court and I know of no Federal court that is going to challenge a sitting President that was duly elected...no matter the facts or rumors of that President eligibility. The fact remains he was elected.

Sad but true.

[Psybadek]

I agree to a point in I dont see why it's such a big deal he can't show documents proving his citizenship, but the guy did go out of the line a little with his statements. Whether we like it or not, Obama is our president.

[03_SHOOTER]

I think his claims are valid, however, after reading the article, I scrolled down to read the comments. Apparently, many people believe the officer is a racist who should resign his commission and join the KKK.

That's the typical response toward anyone who questions the legitimacy of the illigitamate Kenyan illegal immigrant to serve as POTUS.

When all else fails, and you can't prove your point, scream "racist", or "bigot", or some other vile invective.

[Rabbit]

When all else fails, and you can't prove your point, scream "racist", or "bigot", or some other vile invective. That only works one way though, in my opinion. God help the white man who calls a black man racist.

As far as the lawsuit goes, good luck with that. Though, with perspective on our country as I see it, nothing good will come of it.

[03_SHOOTER]

I agree to a point in I dont see why it's such a big deal he can't show documents proving his citizenship...

It's "such a big deal" because Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the United States Constitution REQUIRES that "No person except a natural born citizen...shall be eligible to the office of President...".

but the guy did go out of the line a little with his statements.

I realize that in this day and age most people barely give passing notice of that dusty old document, that was written so long ago, by those wig wearing gentlemen in their silly stockings, but the fact remains that every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine has sworn to "support and defend" that dusty old document, and the good Lt. is merely doing what he swore to do. Now, if that's considered to be going "out of the line a little", then I would suggest that everyone who is well within that line is in the WRONG PLACE!

Whether we like it or not, Obama is our president.

He might be YOUR President, but until such time as the vault copy of his Certificate of Live Birth (as opposed to the Certification of Live Birth that we've been shown) has been presented, with all the pertinent information contained thereon (including the time of birth, length, weight, eye color, hair color, footprints, and the attending physicians signature), as far as I'm concerned the Lt. is correct and the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. is nothing but an illegitimate Kenyan illegal immigrant.

[03_SHOOTER]

That only works one way though, in my opinion. God help the white man who calls a black man racist.

As far as the lawsuit goes, good luck with that. Though, with perspective on our country as I see it, nothing good will come of it.

Then God must be on my side, because I've done it several times. :D

As far as the lawsuit is concerned, I really don't expect the judges on the courts to abide by their oaths, do their jobs, and actually enforce the Constitution, as that would require them to actually know what it says...and means, and if they did, they would have to rule over half of the laws on the books unconstitutional on their face, and that would put entirely too many of their fellow lawyers out of work!

[03_SHOOTER]

This is going nowhere rapidly.

This would have to be adjudicated in a Federal court and I know of no Federal court that is going to challenge a sitting President that was duly elected...no matter the facts or rumors of that President eligibility. The fact remains he was elected.

Sad but true.

Actually, the only thing that would have to happen would be for the Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus ordering the hospital to present the vault copy of the Certificate of Live Birth to the court as part of 'discovery', Once the vault copy has been presented to the court, the case is over, period, and that's precisely what all of the uproar is all about. It's entirely too easy to prove whether or not he actually was born in a hospital on Hawaii and they haven't done it.

Combine that with the fact that the illegitimate Kenyan illegal immigrant has steadfastly refused to produce so many of the other documents from his past (college transcripts, etc.) and "something is rotten in the State of Denmark".

[SGM]

I think it is a big deal and unless there was something to hide, this issue would have been put to rest a long time ago.

As to the dumb young 1LT, his career is over. He should know better than to make statements such as he made while in uniform and deployed. The UCMJ is there for a good reason and the rules are there for a good reason.

So much for another young LT who probably never listened to his SNCO!!

[Psybadek]

It's "such a big deal" because Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the United States Constitution REQUIRES that "No person except a natural born citizen...shall be eligible to the office of President...".



I realize that in this day and age most people barely give passing notice of that dusty old document, that was written so long ago, by those wig wearing gentlemen in their silly stockings, but the fact remains that every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine has sworn to "support and defend" that dusty old document, and the good Lt. is merely doing what he swore to do. Now, if that's considered to be going "out of the line a little", then I would suggest that everyone who is well within that line is in the WRONG PLACE!



He might be YOUR President, but until such time as the vault copy of his Certificate of Live Birth (as opposed to the Certification of Live Birth that we've been shown) has been presented, with all the pertinent information contained thereon (including the time of birth, length, weight, eye color, hair color, footprints, and the attending physicians signature), as far as I'm concerned the Lt. is correct and the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. is nothing but an illegitimate Kenyan illegal immigrant.

FYI, you can multi quote messages in 1 reply.

He has show his birth certificate. We've all seen it. Now you can tell me his sister can't get it right what hospital he was born his or whatever but don't even give me that. I don't know what hospital my sister was born in, or anyone in my family for that matter, heck I don't even know what hospital I was born in. That's not a good argument, but he has shown us his birth certificate which IS a legal document.


I did not vote for Obama, I do not like his socialism policies, but he is the president of the United States of America and he has been LEGALLY sworn in office. I plan to join the Navy, so I will be under his command, and whether I agree with him or not is my choice. I have the freedom of speech yes, but you still just can't say what you want to a extent. Yes the Lt swore to protect and defend the constitution, he is in his right's in what he is saying, but should he choose not to salute the president because he just doesn't consider him our commander in chief, then well he should face the consequences for it. I don't think he should lose his position for his views, or lose his rank or get kicked out of the army. All he did was say what he believes. But he is bringing the attention to himself now so he needs to face what comes to him.

I really don't know what else to say, all it sounds like now is you're making excuses just to get rid of this man. Whether you like it or not he is EVERY AMERICANS PRESIDENT. Not just mine, but everyones. He went through the legal procedures to earn it. Am I happy about it? Of course not I'm quite mad that he got a lot of votes from the African American community just because of his race. He obtained a lot of votes because of the color of his skin and not because of his policies. But everyone has the right to vote and they can vote for whatever reason they choose. So I say get over it, I honestly don't see him going anywhere for 4 years. If you wanna help this country, pray they he will make the right decisions.

[Billyd]

Psybadek, when was the last time you read the Constitution of the United States? Where does it you say you or anyone else has a "right" to vote? There is no mandated "right" to vote. The Constitution of the United States only says that you cannot be denied the vote simply because of one or more factors (race, gender, age (as long as you are over 18)). Try again.

[TruBlu]

I honestly don't see him going anywhere for 4 years.

Try eight unless it is determined that he is not eligible for POTUS, which won't happen.

[JohnP]

Try eight unless it is determined that he is not eligible for POTUS, which won't happen.

I, unfortunately believe that statement.

The good news is, gun sales are going through the roof. I was at my local gun shop today and watched a citizen purchase 3 Bushmaster and a case of ammo.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Three bushmasters? What do you need with more than one weapon? o_O

[JohnP]

Three bushmasters? What do you need with more than one weapon? o_O


Think of it as a stock investment. This time last year, you could've picked up one for less than $700 completely tricked out. They now go for over $1200 for a basic model. The prices rise faster than unemployment.

The other thought would be about arming the militia during times of emergencies. If you've ever been out to this part of the country where the only thing you can depend on is your family and your ranch hands who can't afford these neat toys, it would be feasible to have a few extra lying around. This place is not to far from the "Old West." :M16:

There aren't too many vehicles that don't have weapons hanging from the rear window. I've even seen one with an "Obamanos" bumper sticker on it with a shotgun in the window.:baaa:

[Psybadek]

Psybadek, when was the last time you read the Constitution of the United States? Where does it you say you or anyone else has a "right" to vote? There is no mandated "right" to vote. The Constitution of the United States only says that you cannot be denied the vote simply because of one or more factors (race, gender, age (as long as you are over 18)). Try again.

I never said it was in the Constitution, but it still is simply a right. If you can't be denied something because of race or gender or anything else, then it by definition is a right. It is a right that you can lose should you for instance, become a felon. Just because it's not in the constitution does not mean it isn't a right

[TruBlu]

I never said it was in the Constitution, but it still is simply a right. If you can't be denied something because of race or gender or anything else, then it by definition is a right. It is a right that you can lose should you for instance, become a felon. Just because it's not in the constitution does not mean it isn't a right

The 'right' to vote is simply a concept within a democratic republic government/social environment. There are those certain rights that we as people can claim, but only to a system that allows those 'rights.' Morally, everyone has the right to free speech, press, assembly, etc, but in reality, we only have those rights because we have made it so, not because some divine power. It also holds true that those rights can be taken away in half as much time that it took to make them our 'right.'

[devin0116]

Must we play semantics??

[TruBlu]

I don't play, merely inform lol! Then again it's purely conceptual.

[Billyd]

I never said it was in the Constitution, but it still is simply a right. If you can't be denied something because of race or gender or anything else, then it by definition is a right. It is a right that you can lose should you for instance, become a felon. Just because it's not in the constitution does not mean it isn't a right

When you talk about rights at this forum, and especially in the Politics section, you might want to review the Constitution of the United States prior to posting. IAW the 14th Amendment, you can not deny one the vote simply because of race. The 19th Amendment covers gender and the 26th Amendment covers age. However, nowhere in the Constitution of the United States are you guaranteed the "right" to vote.

Who is permitted to vote is a State issue. In other words, each individual state decided who may vote. The states decide on the qualification for the electorate. I suggest you dig out your copy (you do have one, don't you) and read it prior to raising your hand and swearing an oath to support and defend it from all enemies, foreign and domestic. If you need a copy, check the resources thread here (http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/board/showthread.php?t=27)

[Rabbit]

The good news is, gun sales are going through the roof. I was at my local gun shop today and watched a citizen purchase 3 Bushmaster and a case of ammo. It's hard to keep AR-15's on the shelf at the local gun store I frequent. As well as many other guns and ammuntion. I'm looking to buy a new pistol soon, but haven't set my mind to which flavor I prefer.

[03_SHOOTER]

FYI, you can multi quote messages in 1 reply.

There are a lot of things that I can do, that I choose not to do, for a lot of different reasons, but thank you for the constructive criticism. BTW, don't forget to try that out on your DI's during boot camp and let us know how it works out for you.

He has show his birth certificate. We've all seen it.

What we have all seen is a Certification of Live Birth, which as I have pointed out repeatedly in the past is not a Certificate of Live Birth. A Certificate of Live Birth, or the "vault copy" is the OFFICIAL document that is filled out at the time a child is born and contains the information I mentioned above.

Now you can tell me his sister can't get it right what hospital he was born his or whatever but don't even give me that. I don't know what hospital my sister was born in, or anyone in my family for that matter, heck I don't even know what hospital I was born in. That's not a good argument, but he has shown us his birth certificate which IS a legal document.

Child, you need to back up about a mile or two before you start in on me with the attitude like that. The reason that there's an issue is not because of his sister, but because we have his own paternal grandmother (that means his fathers mother) stating that she was present at his birth IN KENYA! As for the Certification of Live Birth being a "legal document", it's only legal if it is backed up by the Certificate of Live Birth, which we have NOT seen.

I did not vote for Obama, I do not like his socialism policies, but he is the president of the United States of America and he has been LEGALLY sworn in office. I plan to join the Navy, so I will be under his command, and whether I agree with him or not is my choice.

So according to you, if I put on my old uniform and walked up to you, you'd unquestioningly follow MY orders too?

I have the freedom of speech yes, but you still just can't say what you want to a extent.

Why not? Apparently my well worn copy of the Constitution is redacted and doesn't contain the part where it lists exactly what aspect of the freedom of speech are not covered in yours.

Yes the Lt swore to protect and defend the constitution, he is in his right's in what he is saying, but should he choose not to salute the president because he just doesn't consider him our commander in chief, then well he should face the consequences for it. I don't think he should lose his position for his views, or lose his rank or get kicked out of the army. All he did was say what he believes. But he is bringing the attention to himself now so he needs to face what comes to him.

In the finest traditions of the Founding Fathers, who swore their lives, the fortunes, and their sacred honor.

I really don't know what else to say, all it sounds like now is you're making excuses just to get rid of this man. Whether you like it or not he is EVERY AMERICANS PRESIDENT. Not just mine, but everyones. He went through the legal procedures to earn it. Am I happy about it? Of course not I'm quite mad that he got a lot of votes from the African American community just because of his race. He obtained a lot of votes because of the color of his skin and not because of his policies. But everyone has the right to vote and they can vote for whatever reason they choose. So I say get over it, I honestly don't see him going anywhere for 4 years. If you wanna help this country, pray they he will make the right decisions.

It must be nice to be so young, so idealistic, and so IGNORANT. Firstly, you're the one who is making excuses for the DNC failing to properly vet the man. If you'll recall early in the primaries the question came up about McCain being eligible to run for POTUS because he was born in the Canal Zone, and it was resolved by application of the appropriate sections of the United States Code. The same standard is supposed to apply to the illegitimate Kenyan illegal immigrant (but for some reason, some people aren't too interested in doing so) and as the question has not been sufficiently answered, then i will reserve my recognition of him as POTUS until such time as they have, and to hell with what the mouth breathing, drooling, short bus riding, "he was elected by the people" crowd allegedly thinks (not that they've presented any evidence that they're even capable of intelligent thought).

Secondly, I'm so beyond all of the "if you wanna help this country, pray that he will make the right decisions" head in the sand garbage, because I've (barely) lived through the screw ups of entirely too many of the morons that the American sheeple have elected to be the "leader" of the free world, and with this latest choice, we'll be lucky if the country comes out in one piece.

[03_SHOOTER]

I never said it was in the Constitution, but it still is simply a right. If you can't be denied something because of race or gender or anything else, then it by definition is a right. It is a right that you can lose should you for instance, become a felon. Just because it's not in the constitution does not mean it isn't a right

I would strongly suggest that you take the time to read the Constitution, or better yet, head on over the the Constitutional Discussions thread, as we've discussed this subject at length, and NO, voting is NOT a "right", it is a privilege that is extended to you by your State government, and according to the 14th Amendment, they can revoke that privilege for any reason other than race, gender, poll or other tax, or age (provided one is at least 18 years of age).

[TruBlu]

we'll be lucky if the country comes out in one piece.

I fear quite the contrary, we will be lucky if the country comes out in 50 pieces working together under a common authority as opposed to the alternative USSA.

[Psybadek]

There are a lot of things that I can do, that I choose not to do, for a lot of different reasons, but thank you for the constructive criticism. BTW, don't forget to try that out on your DI's during boot camp and let us know how it works out for you.

It was just some advice, didn't mean to upset you, I apologize.


What we have all seen is a Certification of Live Birth, which as I have pointed out repeatedly in the past is not a Certificate of Live Birth. A Certificate of Live Birth, or the "vault copy" is the OFFICIAL document that is filled out at the time a child is born and contains the information I mentioned above.

My mistake, I misread it



Child, you need to back up about a mile or two before you start in on me with the attitude like that. The reason that there's an issue is not because of his sister, but because we have his own paternal grandmother (that means his fathers mother) stating that she was present at his birth IN KENYA! As for the Certification of Live Birth being a "legal document", it's only legal if it is backed up by the Certificate of Live Birth, which we have NOT seen.

I never heard about his father's mother saying that. Not saying it was never said, just never heard that myself, also do not ever call me a child, I will respect you and I expect the same from you.


So according to you, if I put on my old uniform and walked up to you, you'd unquestioningly follow MY orders too?

No, you have no authority over me. That's not what I meant at all


Why not? Apparently my well worn copy of the Constitution is redacted and doesn't contain the part where it lists exactly what aspect of the freedom of speech are not covered in yours.

Huh?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Unless I misread that I'm under the understanding we have a freedom of speech and we can speak freely? Kindly correct me



In the finest traditions of the Founding Fathers, who swore their lives, the fortunes, and their sacred honor.



It must be nice to be so young, so idealistic, and so IGNORANT. Firstly, you're the one who is making excuses for the DNC failing to properly vet the man. If you'll recall early in the primaries the question came up about McCain being eligible to run for POTUS because he was born in the Canal Zone, and it was resolved by application of the appropriate sections of the United States Code. The same standard is supposed to apply to the illegitimate Kenyan illegal immigrant (but for some reason, some people aren't too interested in doing so) and as the question has not been sufficiently answered, then i will reserve my recognition of him as POTUS until such time as they have, and to hell with what the mouth breathing, drooling, short bus riding, "he was elected by the people" crowd allegedly thinks (not that they've presented any evidence that they're even capable of intelligent thought).

Well I was under the understanding the Obama had complied. I knew about McCain's situation, and I can agree with you. Like I said, I had thought he provided his birth certificate, I didn't know it was a certification of live birth. I do believe he should prove his eligibility of being the POTUS. Let me ask you, has he refused to show it? I'm asking because I do not know.


Secondly, I'm so beyond all of the "if you wanna help this country, pray that he will make the right decisions" head in the sand garbage, because I've (barely) lived through the screw ups of entirely too many of the morons that the American sheeple have elected to be the "leader" of the free world, and with this latest choice, we'll be lucky if the country comes out in one piece.
Well that's your choice. I didn't vote for the man, but legally he is our President, I'd much rather believe he will fix the economy and get us on track. You've sound like you've given up, but hey, that's your choice. Although I may be misinterpreting what you are saying.

When you talk about rights at this forum, and especially in the Politics section, you might want to review the Constitution of the United States prior to posting. IAW the 14th Amendment, you can not deny one the vote simply because of race. The 19th Amendment covers gender and the 26th Amendment covers age. However, nowhere in the Constitution of the United States are you guaranteed the "right" to vote.

Who is permitted to vote is a State issue. In other words, each individual state decided who may vote. The states decide on the qualification for the electorate. I suggest you dig out your copy (you do have one, don't you) and read it prior to raising your hand and swearing an oath to support and defend it from all enemies, foreign and domestic. If you need a copy, check the resources thread here (http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/board/showthread.php?t=27)

All right, I won't deny I'm a expert on the constitution, I probably should have read it better. I do see what you are saying though. Though to a certain extent it sounds like it's a right up until it hit's the state level. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you deny anyone anything because of race aren't you denying them their right?

[TheLegalShark]

What we have all seen is a Certification of Live Birth, which as I have pointed out repeatedly in the past is not a Certificate of Live Birth. A Certificate of Live Birth, or the "vault copy" is the OFFICIAL document that is filled out at the time a child is born and contains the information I mentioned above.


O3, just to point this out, not everybody has a certificate of live birth, just a certification. I don't, but that was because of an administrative screw up and my parents' ignorance about that process at the time. It took a bit of effort to have everything cleared up afterward.

I'm not going to make an argument that this is what happened, all I will say is that it is a possibility. Furthermore, the US Supreme Court already dealt with this issue, holding that Obama was indeed born in the United States and is a natural born citizen. It is done and over with.

As far as the Lieutenant in question; I am grateful for his service, but I hope that he is disciplined for his actions in an appropriate manner.

[03_SHOOTER]

My mistake, I misread it

Obviously

I never heard about his father's mother saying that. Not saying it was never said, just never heard that myself,


It would appear that there's a lot you're not aware of, which is why it's better not to make assumptions.

also do not ever call me a child, I will respect you and I expect the same from you.

Child, unless you are well into your 30's, as my children are, to me, you ARE a child.

No, you have no authority over me. That's not what I meant at all

So you assume that I have no authority over you, but you're ready to accept, without question that someone who may, or may not even be a citizen of the United States has some authority over you?


Huh?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Unless I misread that I'm under the understanding we have a freedom of speech and we can speak freely? Kindly correct me

In your earlier post, you said; I have the freedom of speech yes, but you still just can't say what you want to a extent., which is a contradictory statement. We all either do, or we do not have the Right to say what we want to say, without restriction, except while serving in the military. Now, we all understand that while serving in the military there are certain limitations that we all accept on our Constitutional Rights, including the freedom of speech, but pointing out the salient fact that until such time as it is proved that Barry O was in fact born in Hawaii, and not in Kenya as his own Grandmother stated and therefore not legally entitled to be POTUS, is not among the restrictions imposed upon service members.

Well I was under the understanding the Obama had complied. I knew about McCain's situation, and I can agree with you. Like I said, I had thought he provided his birth certificate, I didn't know it was a certification of live birth. I do believe he should prove his eligibility of being the POTUS. Let me ask you, has he refused to show it? I'm asking because I do not know.

He has refused to produce the vault copy of his Certificate of Live Birth, and instead simply produced a Certification of Live Birth, and under some rather suspicious circumstances.

Well that's your choice. I didn't vote for the man, but legally he is our President, I'd much rather believe he will fix the economy and get us on track.

Obama stands about as much of a chance of getting the economy back on track without putting us in so much debt that we'll never see an end to it as I do of running a world record 440 in the 2012 Olympics.

You've sound like you've given up, but hey, that's your choice. Although I may be misinterpreting what you are saying.

The only thing I've given up on is believing in the alleged 'wisdom' of the American people, but that's only because life has proved to me that the vast majority of people are entirely too stupid to realize exactly how stupid they really are. The American sheeple have elected themselves a pig in a poke because they wanted "change", but they were too damned stupid to ask what was going to be changed, and how it was going to be changed.

All right, I won't deny I'm a expert on the constitution, I probably should have read it better. I do see what you are saying though. Though to a certain extent it sounds like it's a right up until it hit's the state level. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you deny anyone anything because of race aren't you denying them their right?

Nobody is talking about denying anyone anything based on their race, and the 13th and 15th Amendments directly address that issue. Also, there is no 'right' to vote in any federal election, therefore all voting is done at the State level.

[03_SHOOTER]

O3, just to point this out, not everybody has a certificate of live birth, just a certification. I don't, but that was because of an administrative screw up and my parents' ignorance about that process at the time. It took a bit of effort to have everything cleared up afterward.

I had a Great-Aunt who was born at home and never had a Certificate of Live Birth, but only a Certification of Live Birth.

I'm not going to make an argument that this is what happened, all I will say is that it is a possibility.

It's equally possible that he was in fact born in Kenya, to parents who weren't legally married, and then brought to Hawaii, taken to the hospital and presented to the staff there whereupon a Certification of Live Birth was made, but under Title 8 USC that does not make him a US citizen.

Furthermore, the US Supreme Court already dealt with this issue, holding that Obama was indeed born in the United States and is a natural born citizen. It is done and over with.

Actually, they made no ruling at all, they simply refused to hear the case. Not the same thing.

As far as the Lieutenant in question; I am grateful for his service, but I hope that he is disciplined for his actions in an appropriate manner.

For under what Article of the UCMJ would you have him disciplined?

[Guardsman-CA]

For under what Article of the UCMJ would you have him disciplined? Insubordination ? :D

[03_SHOOTER]

For under what Article of the UCMJ would you have him disciplined? Insubordination ? :D

And exactly which Article would that be? I ask for a very specific reason as while I am quite familiar with the UCMJ, most young people are not, and therefore infer a criminality where none exists, as in this case.

[TruBlu]

And exactly which Article would that be? I ask for a very specific reason as while I am quite familiar with the UCMJ, most young people are not, and therefore infer a criminality where none exists, as in this case.

What of the Department of Defense Directives I quoted from earlier this thread?

[PhilK]

Well...

There is:

888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
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.


If you wanted to get creative, then there is:

933. ART. 133. CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN
Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.


Now, will any court martial occur? I doubt it, there are more important things in a combat zone to deal with then one stupid LT who ran his mouth. He will probably get re-assigned to some TOC rat job, get a refered OER, passed over for promotion to CPT, and be used an example in OPDs from now on.

[SGM]

Now, will any court martial occur? I doubt it, there are more important things in a combat zone to deal with then one stupid LT who ran his mouth. He will probably get re-assigned to some TOC rat job, get a refered OER, passed over for promotion to CPT, and be used an example in OPDs from now on.

Well put and well said. Which will probably happen. He would make a good teaching example of what not to do.

[03_SHOOTER]

What of the Department of Defense Directives I quoted from earlier this thread?

A DoD Directive is not an Article of the UCMJ. Forgive me for being a bit harsh about this, but one thing people need to learn is that if you're going to call for someone to be charged with a crime, you need to be damned sure that 1) what they have done is in fact a crime, and 2) that you know exactly what offense it is that you are proposing that they be charged with.

As far as the DoD Directive in question, if you will recall this entire episode started when his private correspondence was posted on someones website. He did not make a 'public' statement against the illegitimate Kenyan illegal immigrant currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, and therefore he did not violate the Directive, committed no offense against the "good order and discipline of the Armed Forces", nor did he violate the UCMJ.

[03_SHOOTER]

Well...

There is:



If you wanted to get creative, then there is:



Now, will any court martial occur? I doubt it, there are more important things in a combat zone to deal with then one stupid LT who ran his mouth. He will probably get re-assigned to some TOC rat job, get a refered OER, passed over for promotion to CPT, and be used an example in OPDs from now on.

I agree that if he had made a PUBLIC statement to that effect, then the above charges would have been in order, however since his statement was made in the form of a private correspondence, he did not violate any of the above Articles of the UCMJ. Further, if any punitive actions are taken against him because his private correspondence was posted on a public website, he would have grounds to sue the military for violating his First Amendment Rights.

[03_SHOOTER]

Well put and well said. Which will probably happen. He would make a good teaching example of what not to do.

Really? Then why is it that every rat-f*** in the military who went on and on about President Bush wasn't "made an example of"?? God knows that the past 8 years were replete with egregious examples of service members, both Officer and Enlisted, making very public statements against President Bush accusing him of everything from being a "draft dodger" to "lying about WMD's", and every other vile thing under the sun, far more so than what the Lt. said in his private correspondence, so there was plenty of opportunity to "make an example" of someone and nothing was done.

[PhilK]

Then the question comes up, did he or did he not know that what was said in that letter would become public?

If I write a letter to the editor of my newspaper raking a Congressman over the coals and sign it, is that really "private" correspondence? My intention is to have it printed in the newspaper.

What was this LT's intention? Did he request this site to take down the letter once it was made public? Could he sue the website for making the letter public? Etc.

From the text here, we don't know. But the fact that he added his name to the lawsuit (a rather public "statement" to me) I think some shrewd lawyers could argue the point.

Again though...I doubt we will ever hear about this again.

[Guardsman-CA]

And exactly which Article would that be? I ask for a very specific reason as while I am quite familiar with the UCMJ, most young people are not, and therefore infer a criminality where none exists, as in this case. I'm sorry but it was not meant to be taken seriously that is why the smilie and the question mark. I never had any reason to familiarize myself with the UCMJ so therefore I would not be able to cite any article. I'm not young at 53years old.
As far as calling BHO that may be an incorrect use of the word what I would say is that he IS NOT the saviuor of the world...

[03_SHOOTER]

Then the question comes up, did he or did he not know that what was said in that letter would become public?

Exactly! Unless it can be proved that he intended for the letter to be made public, there is no offense, and as the burden of proof lies with whatever Command level would wish to prosecute him....

If I write a letter to the editor of my newspaper raking a Congressman over the coals and sign it, is that really "private" correspondence? My intention is to have it printed in the newspaper.

True, but we do not know this to be the case.

What was this LT's intention? Did he request this site to take down the letter once it was made public? Could he sue the website for making the letter public? Etc.

From the text here, we don't know.

From what small amount of information we have available to us, it would appear that his intentions were to join other like minded individuals to ensure that the Constitution of the United States hasn't been usurped by someone who very well may not only not be a "natural born citizen", but could very well not even be a US citizen. As far as his requesting that the letter be taken down, again we simply do not know.

But the fact that he added his name to the lawsuit (a rather public "statement" to me) I think some shrewd lawyers could argue the point.

That's a very "slippery slope" PhilK. Using that logic, every member of the military who is a member of the GOP, who openly supported McCain/Palin (or any other GOP candidate for that matter), and who openly spoke out against the illegitimate Kenyan illegal immigrant could therefore argue that they too had made "disloyal" statements, and I really don't think we want to go down that road.

Again though...I doubt we will ever hear about this again.

You are more than likely correct, unless the military decides to make a stink over it and the Lt. decides to blow the whistle on them, in which case I can just about guarantee you that it'll be the lead story on FoxNews.

[03_SHOOTER]

I'm sorry but it was not meant to be taken seriously that is why the smilie and the question mark. I never had any reason to familiarize myself with the UCMJ so therefore I would not be able to cite any article. I'm not young at 53years old.
As far as calling BHO that may be an incorrect use of the word what I would say is that he IS NOT the saviuor of the world...

I did not intend to infer that you were young, only that we have a lot of young people here who do make the error I mentioned.


As far as BHO, as far as I'm concerned, until we do see the vault copy of his Certificate of Live Birth, issued from the hospital on Hawaii where he was allegedly born (contrary to his own paternal grandmothers testimony), he not only isn't POTUS, he's not even an American citizen, and needs to be drug out of the White House by his heels and DEPORTED!

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

I did not intend to infer that you were young, only that we have a lot of young people here who do make the error I mentioned.


As far as BHO, as far as I'm concerned, until we do see the vault copy of his Certificate of Live Birth, issued from the hospital on Hawaii where he was allegedly born (contrary to his own paternal grandmothers testimony), he not only isn't POTUS, he's not even an American citizen, and needs to be drug out of the White House by his heels and DEPORTED!

Sir, wouldn't Jus Sanguinis apply in this situation?

[03_SHOOTER]

Sir, wouldn't Jus Sanguinis apply in this situation?

Actually, no. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution. as well as Title 8 USC are both quite clear on this point.

[TruBlu]

A DoD Directive is not an Article of the UCMJ.

So a DoD Directive is a useless document that holds no authority because of the 'supremacy' of the UCMJ?

[03_SHOOTER]

So a DoD Directive is a useless document that holds no authority because of the 'supremacy' of the UCMJ?

A violation of a DoD directive would be chargeable under the appropriate Article of the UCMJ, but a DoD directive is NOT an Article of the UCMJ. DUH!

[TruBlu]

A violation of a DoD directive would be chargeable under the appropriate Article of the UCMJ, but a DoD directive is NOT an Article of the UCMJ. DUH!

Of course it's not an article, but violation of a DoD directive doesn't go unpunished does it?

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Actually, no. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution. as well as Title 8 USC are both quite clear on this point.

Ah. (Read the portion of the Constitution)

However, on the deportation that you spoke of... wouldn't it apply there?

[03_SHOOTER]

Of course it's not an article, but violation of a DoD directive doesn't go unpunished does it?

The question was "under what Article of the UCMJ would you have him disciplined?", not what DoD directive he may, or may not, have violated (and from what we know from the article, it would appear that he did not even violate the directive).

[03_SHOOTER]

Ah. (Read the portion of the Constitution)

However, on the deportation that you spoke of... wouldn't it apply there?

Under Title 8 USC, if it can be shown that he was in fact born in Kenya, and since his mother never obtained the appropriate authorization from the State Department, he would in fact not even be a citizen, and therefore as he is obviously here without even a Green Card, he would be subject to deportation by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Ah. Thank you, Sir.

[TruBlu]

The question was "under what Article of the UCMJ would you have him disciplined?", not what DoD directive he may, or may not, have violated (and from what we know from the article, it would appear that he did not even violate the directive).

Well from re-reading part of the thread here I have drawn this conclusion: If he 'publicly' makes those statements, he is at the wrath of the UCMJ, but if they are made 'privately,' then he is immune regardless of his deployment status and/or attire when those words come from his mouth.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person

Now, I need some clarification on this... but my understanding is...

If one of your parents is an alien, and the other is an American citizen who has stayed in the US for more than five years, and two of those years must be after they were fourteen, you're a citizen.

[Billyd]

Now, I need some clarification on this... but my understanding is...

If one of your parents is an alien, and the other is an American citizen who has stayed in the US for more than five years, and two of those years must be after they were fourteen, you're a citizen.

Ahh, but how did the law read at the time of BHOs birth? That is how it is supposed to be decided.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

So the verdict is decided on the conditions at the time of BHO's birth, not now?

[03_SHOOTER]

Now, I need some clarification on this... but my understanding is...

If one of your parents is an alien, and the other is an American citizen who has stayed in the US for more than five years, and two of those years must be after they were fourteen, you're a citizen.

You're looking at the wrong Section of Title 8. The Section you referenced is 1401g, but you neglected to look at 1401(g)(a) and (b) and 1401(h) which mandate that at least one of the parents be either in the military or serving in some official capacity on behalf of the US government. What you need to look at is Section 1409, "Children born out of wedlock", since Obama Sr. was already married to a Kenyan woman in 1954, by which he had 4 other children before he married Ann Dunham (Barry O's mother), making him a bigamist and the marriage to Dunham null and void under US law.

To be blunt about it, Barry O is literally ... a bastard.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Ah, I see.

I did read the following subsections, but I figured that those were additions, like... your parent didn't necessarily have to be in the military, however, if they were in the military..., etc.

Thanks for the clarification.

[03_SHOOTER]

So the verdict is decided on the conditions at the time of BHO's birth, not now?

Both can be considered, and the law at the time of his birth should be the primary law considered, but regardless of that, even under current US law (Title 8, Section 1409), unless and until he can prove that he was in fact born on Hawaii, he is nothing more and nothing less than an illegitimate Kenyan illegal immigrant.

[PhilK]

Originally Posted by PhilK
But the fact that he added his name to the lawsuit (a rather public "statement" to me) I think some shrewd lawyers could argue the point.

That's a very "slippery slope" PhilK. Using that logic, every member of the military who is a member of the GOP, who openly supported McCain/Palin (or any other GOP candidate for that matter), and who openly spoke out against the illegitimate Kenyan illegal immigrant could therefore argue that they too had made "disloyal" statements, and I really don't think we want to go down that road.


Not necessarily. During elections candidates are just that candidates. They are not the President or Vice President of the United States.

There were several "heated" discussions in my offices about the election, but as I reminded the participates of the discussions that they could say whatever you want prior to the election about what ever candidate you want, but after the election the person who wins is the President of the United States and our Commander in Chief, and all "contemptuous words" need to cease while in the office. This breeds disharmoney and does not maintain a professional work enviornment, so they needed to keep their political talk to after work and in a private setting.

The way a Soldier speaks before the election or votes during the election can not be held against because in regards to this article of the UCMJ they have done nothing wrong. After the election, and after the new POTUS is sworn in...then you need to ensure you keep your political talk to a private area.

Now, while I know you will bring up that the whole issue is whether President Obama and actually be the POTUS, as of today, right now, according to the United States' Legeslative and Judicial branches as well as the Department of Defense he is the POTUS and thus Commander in Chief, which means any "contemptuous words" against him should cease. If that status changes then all bets are off.

Sorry for a long answer to a non-question.

[03_SHOOTER]

POINT OF CLARIFICATION!:

I realize that some of you believe that I'm being unduly harsh toward Barry O, and that all of this is nothing more than political "sour grapes", but nothing could be further from the truth.

To me it's a rather simple question, either he is, or he is not truly qualified to serve as POTUS. If it is proved that he is, regardless of the fact that I may strongly disagree with his political stances, I WILL extend to him that degree of respect that the Office he properly holds is due, just as I did for President Clinton while he was in Office.

Some of you may recall when the first allegations that President Bush had gone AWOL while he was serving in the National Guard. To me that was a very serious charge, and I immediately set about trying to ascertain the validity of those charges. When the question about whether or not Sen. McCain was actually eligible to serve as POTUS due to the fact that he was born in the Canal Zone, I set about to ascertain the validity of those claims, and I am doing nothing more, and nothing less here.

He has had ample opportunity to present the proper documentation necessary to quell any and all of these questions, and as he is a principal to the documents in question, all he would have had to do is request them from the hospital, no court order required, yet he has steadfastly refused to do so, therefore I and many others are left with no other choice but to believe that he is intentionally attempting to conceal something from We The People of the United States, his EMPLOYERS.

[03_SHOOTER]

Not necessarily. During elections candidates are just that candidates. They are not the President or Vice President of the United States.

Ah, but was he not a sitting United States Senator? Does not Article 88 specifically include members of Congress?

There were several "heated" discussions in my offices about the election, but as I reminded the participates of the discussions that they could say whatever you want prior to the election about what ever candidate you want, but after the election the person who wins is the President of the United States and our Commander in Chief, and all "contemptuous words" need to cease while in the office. This breeds disharmoney and does not maintain a professional work enviornment, so they needed to keep their political talk to after work and in a private setting.

I understand and respect that, or rather I would under normal circumstances, but does not the fact that there is the very distinct possibility that your "CiC" might very well not be a US citizen, and therefore not eligible for the Office he holds as mandated by the Constitution bring your Oath into conflict? As I know you are aware, you are sworn to "support and defend the Constitution..." and to Obey the Orders of the President and those appointed above you, but what if the President... really isn't the President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5? As far as the Legislative Branch, they merely counted the votes of the Electoral College and declared a winner, the Judicial branch has remained suspiciously silent on the issue (probably wishing to avert a replay of the 2000 election). As for the DoD, you also know that you only obey 'lawful' orders, and if Barry O really isn't the President, then his orders aren't lawful, are they?

Sorry for a long answer to a non-question.

I'm glad that you did. This is a very complex issue, dealing not only with the Constitution and the United States Code, but it is an issue that we have never before been faced with as a nation, and needs to be fully explored and each and every one of the issues addressed as completely as possible.

[PhilK]

He has had ample opportunity to present the proper documentation necessary to quell any and all of these questions, and as he is a principal to the documents in question, all he would have had to do is request them from the hospital, no court order required, yet he has steadfastly refused to do so, therefore I and many others are left with no other choice but to believe that he is intentionally attempting to conceal something from We The People of the United States, his EMPLOYERS.


I completely understand what you are saying, and it would be nice to put this thing to bed. However, for me the following two things are what tell me it is a non-issue:

1.) The Rebulican Party did not push this to a boiling point during the election. With the depth of research that these two campaigns did on each other, I can't help but think that if it was really an issue the McCain camp would have exploited it to the fullest degree.

2.) The Clinton campaign didn't pursue it to the fullest degree. Let's be honest for a second. Hillary didn't just "want" to be President of the United States...she REALLY REALLY REALLY WANTED to be President, plus with her track record do we really think that if there was a glimmer of hope that she could have derailed President Obama's campaign from the beginning that she would have just "given up"? Especially when it was down to her and him in the Democratic Primaries...she would have unloaded on him and taken the ticket without thinking twice.

When both these candidates were pouring millions of dollars into these campaigns and doing everything to get either the ticket or the Presidency this is just not something that would have been "overlooked".

Just my two cents.

[PhilK]

Ah, but was he not a sitting United States Senator? Does not Article 88 specifically include members of Congress?



It does...but then you take ALL our fun away. ;)

[HairyEyeball]

'Unduly harsh', 03? In what - stating the facts?

Fact: The Constitution of the United States of America - the 'supreme Law of the Land' - clearly elucidates in Article II: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President..."

Fact: There is a clear and pressing question of whether the current occupant of the Oval Office is qualified under such stipulation.

Fact: Said individual has repeatedly refused to provide documentation of such qualification.

Fact: The Congress of the United States, charged with certifying the results of his 'election' and ensuring his qualifications under such stipulation prior to such certification, is guilty of malfeasance in its failure to do so.

Fact: Any military action taken at the order of this individual and any treaty signed by this individual may well be null and void should the specified condition not be fulfilled - in the former instance, additionally subjecting any military personnel to prosecution as 'war criminals'; insofar as any military action including their participation would not be sanctioned by a legitimate 'head of state'.

Fact: Although military personnel are, until such time as apprised to the contrary, subject to the UCMJ strictures on public criticism of National Command Authority, those of us not so constrained, but still bound by the oath to protect and defend country and Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, have no moral choice but to uphold that oath by every effort to ascertain the truth.

Fact: Should the current occupant either prove qualified (under the law) or maintained in office despite the lack of such qualification, we are further obligated to oppose and offer legal challenge to those of his programs and initiatives, or those of the Congress (which has already failed in its duties and obligations) which are detrimental to or in violation of the Constitution.

[03_SHOOTER]

I completely understand what you are saying, and it would be nice to put this thing to bed. However, for me the following two things are what tell me it is a non-issue:

1.) The Rebulican Party did not push this to a boiling point during the election. With the depth of research that these two campaigns did on each other, I can't help but think that if it was really an issue the McCain camp would have exploited it to the fullest degree.

I seem to recall that it was addressed by the McCain camp, and their response was that the issue was being addressed by the courts. By the time the courts had decided to play "duck and cover" rather than fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities, it was already over.

2.) The Clinton campaign didn't pursue it to the fullest degree. Let's be honest for a second. Hillary didn't just "want" to be President of the United States...she REALLY REALLY REALLY WANTED to be President, plus with her track record do we really think that if there was a glimmer of hope that she could have derailed President Obama's campaign from the beginning that she would have just "given up"? Especially when it was down to her and him in the Democratic Primaries...she would have unloaded on him and taken the ticket without thinking twice.

Actually, the original filing was made by a Hitlery supporter, and rumor control has it that it was her campaign that funded it!

When both these candidates were pouring millions of dollars into these campaigns and doing everything to get either the ticket or the Presidency this is just not something that would have been "overlooked".

Just my two cents.

I understand, but both camps had to play it cool about it, otherwise every libtard in the country would have been screaming "RACIST" at them, and there would have been rioting in the streets that would have made Watts look like a Girl Scout cookie sale!

[03_SHOOTER]

It does...but then you take ALL our fun away. ;)

Just doing my job PhilK, just doing my job.

[03_SHOOTER]

'Unduly harsh', 03? In what - stating the facts?

Not at all, but as you have pointed out in the past, my particular choice of verbiage in stating those facts could use a bit of...finesse. I suppose that I could simply refer to him as the "Presumptive POTUS" instead of "the illegitimate Kenyan illegal immigrant", but that really wouldn't be my style, although I am working on it. You should have heard what I was originally calling him before I cleaned it up for the Forum!!

[Woody]

I cant beleive they would select a candidate who isnt eligible.Its not like they were not others who wanted the job .This seems like the equilvent of bush stealing the election from the other side.

[navytrooper]

I completely understand what you are saying, and it would be nice to put this thing to bed. However, for me the following two things are what tell me it is a non-issue:

1.) The Rebulican Party did not push this to a boiling point during the election. With the depth of research that these two campaigns did on each other, I can't help but think that if it was really an issue the McCain camp would have exploited it to the fullest degree.

2.) The Clinton campaign didn't pursue it to the fullest degree. Let's be honest for a second. Hillary didn't just "want" to be President of the United States...she REALLY REALLY REALLY WANTED to be President, plus with her track record do we really think that if there was a glimmer of hope that she could have derailed President Obama's campaign from the beginning that she would have just "given up"? Especially when it was down to her and him in the Democratic Primaries...she would have unloaded on him and taken the ticket without thinking twice.

When both these candidates were pouring millions of dollars into these campaigns and doing everything to get either the ticket or the Presidency this is just not something that would have been "overlooked".

Just my two cents.

Hmm I'm almost scared to partake in such a heated discussion, but I just wanted to add a little tidbit of information.

Sir, while (as you said) Obama's competitors never dug up this juicy bit of information (and used it against him), IMHO that really doesn't mean much. Historically, one of the famous "firsts" in political "mud-slinging (aka dirty politics)" was John Quincy Adams vs. Andrew Jackson. This was a very dirty political campaign, with both sides making up total lies about each other, one of them even reducing "Old Hickory" to tears. BUT. The biggest secret (that was actually in plain sight for anyone who wanted to know) that Jackson could have used was that John Quincy Adams skinny-dipped. Skinny-dipping was considered very inappropriate in society back then, and would have sealed Jackson's victory. While he did indeed win the election, he had never once used the "skinny-dipping" thing. Instead he (and Adams) opted to throw reckless and hurtful lies to the public about each other.

[TruBlu]

Skinny dipping isn't illegal; holding the position of POTUS while not a citizen is.

[Billyd]

Skinny dipping isn't illegal; holding the position of POTUS while not a citizen is.

Correction, holding the office of POTUS while not a NATURAL born citizen is.

[TruBlu]

Ah yes, thank you Sergeant.

[navytrooper]

I know skinny-dipping isn't illegal, but back then it was the equivalent of streaking; wouldn't a desperate political competitor point that out (if a candidate does that regularly)?

[TruBlu]

Sure they could, but I'm not sure why skinny dipping would affect someone's political status, maybe just their social status. On the other hand, not being a natural born citizen will greatly affect someone's political status and social status seeing as though said person would have been practicing a great deception to the people all these years. Then again if the skinny dipping situation that plagued America was a house hold discussion then it could affect someone in a similar way...

[NightRunner]

Fact: Any military action taken at the order of this individual and any treaty signed by this individual may well be null and void should the specified condition not be fulfilled - in the former instance, additionally subjecting any military personnel to prosecution as 'war criminals'; insofar as any military action including their participation would not be sanctioned by a legitimate 'head of state'.
Truth be told, the longer this issue is ignored, the greater the potential for disaster. IF at some point in the future (even after BHO's term(s) in office have been long over) he is proven to be (or to have been) an illegitimate 'heir to the throne,' then what are the possibilities for disaster? This could lead to some very serious misunderstandings with foreign nations. What about all the people he has appointed to official positions? Would they be removed?

Due to the potential of such dire consequences, I would not put it past certain pseudo-friendly countries to perform their own bit of research into this matter. The mere uncertainty of this issue is a tiny crack. What if... BHO is not legitimately in office, the 'wrong people' secure proof of this and are able to make this information available without revealing themselves? How could this information and resulting fissure in the government be used against the U.S. by someone who is willing to wait for the opportune time? It seems to me that ACTIVELY pursuing INDISPUTABLE proof of BHO's legitimacy as a natural born citizen is NOT simply a matter of splitting hairs--this urgently needs to be resolved as a matter of national security. A crack in the foundation of executive power which could, given time, be exploited should never simply be painted over.

Suffice it to say, what H.E. has pointed out here should be in the back of the mind of every DEP'er, recruit, trainee, and cadet when their right hand is raised. I know I will be thinking it over long and hard before signing.

Fact: Should the current occupant either prove qualified (under the law) or maintained in office despite the lack of such qualification, we are further obligated to oppose and offer legal challenge to those of his programs and initiatives, or those of the Congress (which has already failed in its duties and obligations) which are detrimental to or in violation of the Constitution.
This is vigilance which every citizen should be keeping, at all times, regardless.