Posted on 08/14/2011 1:58:41 PM PDT by charlene4
Here is the email from Air Force Staff Sergeant Moran,
My name is Daryn J. Moran. I am a SSgt in the USAF stationed in Germany.
I called Pastor Manning of the Manning Report just recently (Youtube video posted below) to share my concern for our country. Boils down that I have not gone in to work last Thurs. and Fri. First time I was AWOL in nearly 13 years. Until B. Obama provides a birth certificate which stands up to professional examination, not even mentioning the seriousness of the fact that his father was never an American, I no longer serve the Armed Forces or take orders.
Basically, I'd rather follow Mr. Lakin, the ex-Army officer who went to Ft. Leavenworth, into war against our real enemies.
My family is in turmoil because I cannot change my heart to support Obama, or protect his criminality. I love America and the Constitution and stand against B. Obama. He should be arrested.
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
( I’m playing this out ‘mostly from memory’ but I believe it is essential factual. )
Baltimore was the most significant railway hub connecting D.C. to the Northeast population centers from where the Army was being dispatched to D.C. in defense of the Union Capital. When the troops were being marched from point to point within the City for transit to forward deployment areas, they were being attacked in the streets by secessionists and Confederate sympathizers within the general population.
The Governor, Hicks, called the Legislature into session to enact legislation ( Lincoln believed ) to facilitate further insurrection and / or actual secession. To protect the troops, secure the railheads and prevent D.C. from being isolated WITHIN a seceded state, Lincoln ordered the Army to seize Baltimore and, further, to prevent the Legislature from meeting — not coincidentally suspending Habeas Corpus to facilitate his orders.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court ( in Merryman ) vacated Lincoln’s actions and certain trial verdicts resulting from them, declaring that ONLY Congress had the power to suspend Habeas Corpus and certain other ‘emergency measures’ Lincoln applied but that Congress COULD ‘ratify’ such decrees after the fact if the President claimed his belief that he acted with urgency in order to fulfill his oath of office.
Now, WRT the Insurrection Act, this was originally enacted by Congress sometime around 1807 and had nothing to do with Lincoln or the Civil War. It defines the conditions and limitations for deployment of Federal military forces within the States and serves to specifically limit when and why the President may do so — mostly to suppress insurrection, repel invasions ( f’rinstance by the Plains Indian tribes ) and other proper cases.
The Posse Comitatus Act was originally enacted AFTER the Civil War, in fact late in the Reconstruction Period, I believe, and was specifically supplied by Congress to clean up various patterns of Military Misconduct growing out the occupation and ‘reconstruction’ of the Confederate States and the loosening of the ‘rules’ that occurred in various places DURING the Civil War and subsequently crept in the political culture afterwards.
Was the Army ‘supposed’ to ‘occupy’ Maryland ( actually just the City of Baltimore ) and ‘arrest’ the Legislature ( actually just the Secessionists were touched ) ? Actually, the answer is ‘Yes’, but not for the reasons you seem to think apply.
This was NOT the rogue act of an out of control Army. Just look at a map. Place D.C. clearly in your mind — COMPLETELY surrounded by Virginia and a Maryland ( apparently ) threatening to secede; and observe the attacks inflicted on the troops in transit to defend D.C. What ELSE was Lincoln supposed to DO ?
Even the Supreme Court eventually concluded that he was to be ‘excused’ for the exigencies imposed upon him to fulfill his Oath, protect the troops and defend the Nation’s Capital.
You exhibit an absolute misapprehension of the Viet Nam era which many of us who lived through it tend to view as overly simplistic, jingoistic and facile. Enough said on that point ...
I am not aware of ANY time or incident where the US Military prostrated itself to ANY political person, faction, party or movement such as occurred when the Wehrmacht restated their Oath as being derived from the National Socialist Party Platform and oriented to create ONLY Personal Loyalty to Adolf Hitler — NOT the German people or nation. Your insinuation that there is ANY similarity between them is so profoundly ignorant and insulting to the history and honor of the US Military, I can’t even IMAGINE how to come to a meeting of minds.
As to the remainder of your ad hominem rants, I just don’t think I want to play down there with y’all.
Well ... Bless your heart. You go on and have a nice day, or life, or whatever. Buh-bye, now ...
21stCenturion
“I am not aware of ANY time or incident where the US Military prostrated itself to ANY political person, faction, party or movement”
During the ratification of the 14th Amendendment the occupying troops in the South played a role in the vote.
I’m NOT clear. What IS your point and how is it relevant to the commentary you’ve attached to ???
21stCenturion
“I am not aware of ANY time or incident where the US Military prostrated itself to ANY political person, faction, party or movement”
Without Federal troops the 14th Amendment would not have passed.
There's nothing to refute. Manning doesn't present evidence for any of his claims, he just sits in front of the camera barking crap like, "9/11 was an inside job!"
Tantamount to! If they are NOT PERMITTED to act upon their understanding of the constitution, then they cannot defend it, for they can see no threat to it.
My point is that the military must defer to the judgement of the civilian branches when there is a dispute on a constitutional matter.
This means that no matter how egregious the violation of constitutional requirements by the Civilian branches, the military must not interfere. So if the Executive branch starts pushing civilians into re-education camps, and if neither the Judicial or Legislative branches deign to object, the military is supposed to sit on their hands and proclaim "This is all perfectly acceptable because our superiors told us so! "
I have news for you. There are huge swaths of the Military who have repudiated this notion. This is even now an idea sweeping across the nation.
For it to be otherwise would be to put the military's judgement above that of the civilian branches of government, thereby destroying the fundamental principle of civilian control.
God forbid that should the idiot civilian authorities break constitutional law, they should lose control! Seriously, you think Civilian control is more important than defending our Liberty?
If a military officer believes he is being ordered by the civilian authority to committ an unconstitutional act, than his duty is is resign in protest and take his case to the people.
Yes, if Obama decides to Nuke Austin, it is the officers duty to walk out of the room and report him to the first reporter he sees. THAT will fix it! :)
Not on a disputed question that has already been decided by the civilian branches of government, as in this case.
You would have an argument had it gone to trial. It didn't. The civilian authorities fell down on the job.
Refusing to follow lawful orders until being given what an officer thinks constitutes, in his judgment, satisfactory proof does constitute an act of contraveneing the judgement of both Congress and the electoral college, who have already found Obama to be proven legitimate to their satisfaction.
This argument presumes they weighed the issue. They did not. The slept for a bit, and when they awoke, we had someone sitting in the head chair.
Because it goes against the Constitution, which gives the power of vetting the president-elect to the electoral college and Congress alone.
They didn't do it.
For the military to demand proof to its satisfaction would constitute a usurpation of power not granted to it.
No, it would oblige them to deal with an extra constitutional crises which should not have been handed to them because everyone else did their jobs properly.
As Jefferson put it:
"To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means…. It is incumbent on those only who accept of greatest charges, to risk themselves on great occasion, when the safety of the nation, or some of its very high interests are at stake."
And Abraham Lincoln:
To state the question more directly: are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the Government itself to go to pieces, lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken if the government should be overthrown, when it was believed that disregarding the single law would tend to preserve it?
That's exactly right. We are not Chile. We are not Turkey. We are not Fascist Spain. The people, acting through the electoral college and their elected representatives in Congress are fully sovereign. The military is the servant of these institutions of the people, and it has no business questionting their judgements.
That they chose Barack is not being questioned. That He was qualified in the first place is. The public doesn't get to violate the Constitution just because they WANT TO.
The military has no business contrvening the will of the poeple, even if they decide to elect someone like Dennis the Menace to the presidency.
As long as such selection does not constitute a violation of the Document they swore to uphold. The military must respect the election of an idiot. (Every Democrat President in History) But it must be an ELIGIBLE Idiot!
You are funny. I'm sure President Jackson consulted your dictionary.
They are allowed to make judgements, but where there is a dispute, they must defer the determination of the civilian branches of government. If it were otherwise, we would be living in a military dictatorship.
There have been no determinations of the civilian branches of government because the issue hasn't been weighed. Every attempt to weigh it is fought back with lawyers tricks and deceit. The Civilian responsibility has been interdicted, and rendered inoperable.
If you fear a Military dictatorship, one would think you would be advocating for the Civilian branches whom you claim have responsibility to address the issue so as to preclude the possibility that the military might see the necessity of having to do it themselves, yet here you are, always advocating that this must NOT be checked, and it must NOT be adjudicated.
One would think that you fear a civilian deciding of the question more than the possibility of a military dictatorship, given all your opposition to civilians getting to the bottom of the issue.
So which is it? Do you want the civilians to get to the truth, or would you prefer that the Military quit obeying him till he presents his real credentials? Something tells me the common denominator with you is that you want NO ONE to question his eligibility regardless of who they are.
For one so concerned about "military coup"s you would think that you would want to avoid all possibility of one. Demanding a $12.00 document seems like a small price to pay.
Yes, because that would give the military de facto veto power over presidential elections.
Silly cow, The Military has always had veto power over presidential elections. (and everything else) That they chose not to use it is a testimony to their fidelity regarding their oath to the constitution. The same oath you keep wanting to undermine by obligating them to accept without question a leader of unknown legitimacy.
If the military didn't like the choice of the people, they could say they haven't been given sufficient proof of the president's eligibility, continually making excuses as to why whatever proof presented to them isn't good enough, just as birthers do with the proof Obama has presented.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda. You argue facts not in evidence. Obama's obfuscation regarding his proof is egregious. That this is even an issue is testimony to his obduracy. Discussions regarding the military's role in verifying that their leader is legitimate, would not ever have occurred but for the absolute refusal of a single man to be truthful and forthcoming about his original document. Again, you think the tail should wag the dog.
Depends on the standard of proof. Make that standard absurdly high, as birthers are doing with Obama, and no one can satisfy it.
An original document is not absurdly high. As a matter of fact, it is a standard easily met by the vast bulk of the population, yet it seems a hurdle too high for this peculiar man. It seems evident to me that only a person with something to hide is willing to put the nation through such gyrations in order to hide it. Cats Run, Dogs Chase. I think Obama is a cat.
Please tell me where the constitution gives the military the authority to determine the eligibility of the president.
The same place where it gave Lincoln the power to suspend Habeas Corpus.
An axiomatic fact of life is the man with the gun makes the rules. One can only hope that in such a situation as you describe that the man with the gun is deciding rightly. Whether he should act or not, is entirely within his own power. We weight the military down with an obligation to our Founding document in the hopes that when necessity requires, he will follow it.
Curtis LeMay is an example of such a thing. At one time he was the most powerful man in the world. He controlled the combined might of the United States Strategic Bomber command and the entire nuclear strike force of the nation. He could have obliterated the soviet union in a weekend, and he many times argued that we should do exactly that. He was vehement about the need to prevent the Russians from ever achieving Parity with us, and how much American bloodshed might be prevented in the future if we would only strike them while we had the advantage.
He passionately and consistently argued that our enemies should not be allowed to obtain Nuclear weapons, and he possessed the power to unilaterally decide this issue for himself. During the Cuban Missle Crises, he begged John Kennedy to let him take out the Russians, he said it would be the last chance to do so at minimal cost in American lives.
Throughout the Administration of three Presidents, he advocated the same thing, and for most of that time it was in his power to implement his plan. (Father of the Japanese bombing effort, and the Berlin Airlift) Yet throughout his entire career, he held fast to his oath, and refused to take the United States into a war he desperately thought we needed, all because of his belief in the legitimacy of our system of government.
However, he did do a few things that absolutely pushed the envelope. He sent armed nuclear bombers flying over soviet cities on a routine basis in the 1950s. He had radar mapped every Russian city on the continent, and he implemented constant American military overflights of Russian territory. Eisenhower's dismay of missing a treaty opportunity with the Russians is a direct result of LeMay's actions regarding American overflights of Russia. Eisenhower did not know we were doing this, and the Russians thought he must be lying.
Anyway, the point is, it is a dangerous thing to tamper with the strings which bind our military to civilian rule. It is not a good idea to put pressure on them. You and Obama need to stop applying this pressure.
I get it. Ignoring the constitution is okay if you have a good reason.
Was the Army ‘supposed’ to ‘occupy’ Maryland ( actually just the City of Baltimore ) and ‘arrest’ the Legislature ( actually just the Secessionists were touched ) ? Actually, the answer is ‘Yes’, but not for the reasons you seem to think apply.
The reasons only matter if they were "good" reasons. Regardless, the constitution got suspended.
This was NOT the rogue act of an out of control Army. Just look at a map. Place D.C. clearly in your mind — COMPLETELY surrounded by Virginia and a Maryland ( apparently ) threatening to secede; and observe the attacks inflicted on the troops in transit to defend D.C. What ELSE was Lincoln supposed to DO ?
What is the NEXT President supposed to do when he sees a need to Arrest members of the Civilian legislature?
Even the Supreme Court eventually concluded that he was to be ‘excused’ for the exigencies imposed upon him to fulfill his Oath, protect the troops and defend the Nation’s Capital.
After the fact. Of course since he disregarded previous Supreme Court writs, created and moved massive armies, and pressed foreigners right off the ships to fight and die, how much weight should we grant an ex post facto blessing? At this point they ought to have been afraid of him.
Your insinuation that there is ANY similarity between them is so profoundly ignorant and insulting to the history and honor of the US Military, I can’t even IMAGINE how to come to a meeting of minds.
I am not suggesting that the American MILITARY is Nazified, I am flat out saying that the National Socialists now in charge are very much Nazified, complete with propaganda corps and brown shirts.
As to the remainder of your ad hominem rants, I just don’t think I want to play down there with y’all.
And yet, here you are. :)
Well ... Bless your heart. You go on and have a nice day, or life, or whatever. Buh-bye, now ...
Wow! You sure told me! I feel chastised or something. :) In the book "The Lucifer Principle", the author claims that a tactic which is used in the social contest is that of "dismissal." He uses apes as example. Often times when a young ape challenges the older more dominant male, If the older male thinks he can win he fights and attacks immediately, but if he is not sure of himself, he pretends not to notice the objectionable antics of the younger male.
He pretends to be so high and lofty that he doesn't deign to notice the contemptuous behavior of his childish challenger.
Seems like humans do this a lot as well. :)
That is true in Bannana republics, but not in the USA.
In point of fact, one of the principle goals of the founding fathers was precisely to set up a system in which the military DO NOT make the rules.
That is why, under our system, the miltiary has absolutely no right to question the constitutional judgement of civilian branches of government.
So you finally showed your fascist colors. Good to see you being honest for a change.
An original document is not absurdly high
The duplicity of birthers never ceases to amaze me.
You know damn well you wouldn't be satisfied with an original birth certificate even if Hawaii's public health director delivered it to you in person and swore under oath to its authenticity. You have stated to me numerous times how you don't trust Hawaii's birth registration procedures, and how you believe it is likely that Obama's official documents say he was born in Hawaii when he wasn't.
And then even if you could be satisfied that he was born in Hawaii, you still would say he is ineligible because his father wasn't a US citizen.
So don't give me this crap about how all it would take is just a $12 document. That's a lie and you know it.
Bad way to try to get out of the Fit-to-Fight Test.
If you personally had the power to change HI laws and make it possible for Taitz and others to inspect Obama’s ‘birth records’, would you do it?
Bull. The electoral college results were certified by Congress. That's a judgement by the legislative branch that Obama is a legitimate presdient. George Bush peacefully handed over power to him without protest. That's a confirming judgement by the executive branch. Finally, Justice Roberts swore him in without objection. That's a confirming judgement by the judicial branch.
And if that's not enough, several lower Federal courts rejected birther arguments ONE THE MERITS. Yes, on the merits. Birthers love to say their cases were thrown out based on technicalities, but that's not true of all of them. There were a couple in which the judge specifically ruled that birther arugments were nonsense.
So we have all the three branches of a dully-elected, civilian goverment unanimously judging that Obama is a legitimate president.
The military, not being elected, and not representing the people, has no authority to object. Unlike what goes on in bananna republics, the military is not a branch of government in our system, neither de jure nor de facto.
In case you missed it:
It does seem as if some have more animus toward their fellow conservatives than toward Obama. I don’t get that, especially on a conservative site. It’s weird, but then Obama, the beneficiary of much of their conservative-directed ridicule, is weird also.
I may be somewhat unique on eligibility threads. I’m not here because I am an expert researcher and up to date on all the details of Obama’s secretive past. I’m here because I am an expert on Malignant Narcissism. Obama embodies that personality disorder as if he were the prototype. Nobody who is familiar with that particular sociopathy can fail to recognize it in Obama. His words and actions scream it day in and day out; all you have to do is watch and listen, and the truth is unavoidable.
Now here is something to think about. Malignant Narcissists do not just lie. They ARE a lie. Their identity is a lie. Their self-constructed history is a lie. Everything about them is a lie. Furthermore, the biggest lies of all concern their childhood. It was there that the personality disorder began, and it happened precisely because the child could not accept, cope with or survive—emotionally and psychologically intact, anyway—their environment as it existed. So they opted out of reality and constructed a fantasy world where black was white and up was down and they were everything the real world said they weren’t. The worst part being, they believe the fantasy world is real and the real world isn’t. It is a very extreme and serious disorder.
The upshot being, while you can’t believe anything a MN says, he is most unreliable of all when speaking of his childhood. Thus it is quite legitimate to assume that ninety to ninety-five percent, conservatively speaking, of what Obama says about his childhood is false.
So where does that leave us? Trying desperately to find the truth and being blocked at every path because the truth would destroy Obama’s identity and carefully crafted image/history.
It also leaves us being ridiculed by many on this site. How that is supposed to be a net-plus for FR I do not know. But that’s the situation, fwiw.
In case you missed it:
It’s easy to tell who’s been around a Malignant Narcissist, and/or studied the disorder, isn’t it? All anybody has to be is familiar with it, and you can spot it in Obama from a mile away.
Yet there are people who believe anything he says. There are even some who believe all or any part of Dreams. Obama himself admitted it’s not factual. It’s fully of ‘composites’ and other crap meant to protect him from the charge that he misrepresented the facts.
All of which makes sense, because every ‘fact’ in the book that can be tested against known facts has turned out to be fundamentally misrepresented. Which leaves only the parts of the book that can’t be fact-checked. So some people will acknowledge problems with the checkable parts, yet explain them away as no big deal while accepting as fact everything that can’t be checked. Yet ‘birthers’ are supposed to be the crazy ones?
It’s as if you have two stacks of bills from the same source. One stack you’re allowed to test but the other is off limits. Every bill from the first stack turns out, upon testing, to be counterfeit. So you make the assumption, based on that, that every bill in the second stack is NOT counterfeit.
But again, it’s the ‘birthers’ who are nuts.
In case you missed it:
There is little doubt in my mind that most of the research cited by the Obama defenders on this website, originates on Fogbow or Obamaconspiracy.
I have argued this issue on many websites, and the only places I encounter such detailed and in-depth researched rebuttals are on Obamaconspiracy and Here. (I don’t bother with Fogbow, or Obamaconspiracy anymore for that matter.)
It is axiomatic to me that the only people who feel strongly enough about this issue to go through the dull and boring trudge work of finding passages in ancient documents to support their position are Dedicated Liberal Democrat Obots, and those members of the Republican establishment that share common cause with them. (Which is what I suspect we are dealing with here.)
[Courtesy Diogenes]
In case you missed it:
Post of the day, and it’s not even 10 a.m. here. Thank you for putting into words what I have thought but have never expressed so well. There is something positively creepy about the depths and lengths and breadths to which Obots will go to defend the marxist. No conservative would take that much time to prop up this fraud and pathological liar, ditto Independents and moderates. Ninety-nine percent of Dems either don’t care or else blindly buy whatever Obama is selling.
That leaves a tiny sliver of Obamaphiles who have devoted countless hours to marshaling obscure, Byzantine, legalistic, light-weight, mind-numbingly repetitious ‘arguments’ to bolster The Won’s fraud-riddled birth narrative. They think we can’t figure them out. They think we are ignorant rubes. Perhaps there is just a little projection involved in their thought processes.
Still waiting:
If you personally had the power to change HI laws and make it possible for Taitz and others to inspect Obama’s ‘birth records’, would you do it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.