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 ...
“If someone has PROOF he was born in Kenya, it would be a whole different ballgame. Until then, the military needs to accept civilian rule - and all 3 branches of the government and all 50 states accept that Obama is President.
“
That is it in a nutshell. If there was proof, not doubt, but proof, he could have a leg to stand on. He can still sue in court as a military member but he should continue his duties as ordered.
The founders set up a system of checks an balances within the civilian government designed to prevent something like that from happening. The military IS NOT part of this system. The only recourse miltiary officers would have in such an (extremely unlikely) scenario is refuse to carry out the unconstitutional orders and resign in protest.
You’re the one who mocked us for even suggesting Obama is a liar. Now you’re lecturing us like a know-it-all. If you’re not sharp enough to recognize a serial liar in action, why should we listen to a word you say?
New e mail from SSgt Moran
www.obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com
Am I breaking some kind of rule? Are you threatening to get me banned?
Interesting.
http://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/articles/Volume%2053/Issue%202/Bryant.pdf
Note: the author concludes:
The ratification story of the Fourteenth Amendment, which shows the irregular and likely unconstitutional process by which it has been declared part of our Constitution, demonstrates that a major cornerstone of constitutional law is placed on a shaky and uneasy foundation. Unfortunately, although one may wish to remedy the constitutional wrongs committed during its ratification, it is apparent that this cornerstone amendment should be left in place, lest the entire house of higher law as we know it should come toppling down. It is not too late, however, to shore up the foundation of constitutional jurisprudence. Congress and the states should repropose and ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, and thereby ensure the principles of equal protection and due process which the Amendment guarantees.
So the Ad hominem attack on David Manning wasn't even trying to refute an argument? It was just bile being spewed? Good to know.
First and second. Lakin and Moran.
Unlikely.
It is true in ALL Human societies. The USA obeys the same laws of physics to which all other cultures are susceptible. Your inability to discern reality does not make it go away.
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.
Right. That's why they appointed the Post Office to be in charge of the Military, because they knew force wasn't needed to make people obey the rules. Don't mistake your own simpleness for that of the founders.
That is why, under our system, the miltiary has absolutely no right to question the constitutional judgement of civilian branches of government.
Were there a constitutional judgement to question, you might have a point. As the issue has yet to be adjudicated, you do not. Madame Chairman, I move to call the Question! "Is this man eligible or not? " The Sensible part of the Population of the United States wants to know, including the military.
No. I am simply asking you not to communicate with me. It is up to you whether or not you grant my request. If you do continue to send me posts, I will simply decline to reply.
It was adjudicated and settled when Congress ratified the electoral college results without a single objection.
Pointing out the obvious is not fascist, it's realist. All Militarys throughout history hold veto power over whatever occurs. That they chose not to use it does not mean they do not have it.
The duplicity of birthers never ceases to amaze me.
I suspect you are amazed by all sorts of ideas you make up. You obviously live in a childlike wonder state, and the wonder is that you think you're mature enough to debate with anyone.
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.
See, there you go again, telling me of knowledge you do not have. You also overlook the fact that the Hawaiian director cannot swear to something of which they have no personal knowledge. They can only swear that they are presenting a copy of what is in their files. (And they won't do that) As they keep obfuscating, their credibility degrades by the day. When one is cooperating in telling the truth, they get it out quickly and without delay.
Had they produced a clear copy of his long form, and certified it as a "true and correct copy of the original record" EVERYONE would have accepted it. Because they keep pulling stunts, nobody trusts them to tell the truth anymore.
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.
This only proves you don't listen or that you don't comprehend. I said it is one possibility of two. I have said that everything which has been shown so far may in fact be the truth, but because they haven't been forthright, they are no longer trustworthy in my mind.
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.
You are just full of assumptions. Wouldn't his eligibility depend upon what is on his REAL birth certificate? If his REAL birth certificate says his father is Frank Davis, then he is absolutely eligible. I am not presuming what we shall see if his original document is shown. It could go one way or the other. It is YOU who is so certain of everything.
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.
What, the prices has gone up? Is it now $15.00? Actually, you have a point. *IF* his original birth certificate was sealed by court order, it might cost more than that, but it certainly wouldn't be as costly as having the military suspicious about the legitimacy of it's commander. I understand it has already cost the nation the services of a Medical doctor, plus the cost of his incarceration, all which could have been avoided had we not let the tail wag the dog.
By the way, What should a Military Officer do if he suspects his superior is an Enemy agent? Let us marvel at the genius of your answer!
I am a long-time poster and a rock solid conservative, and from what I have seen my tone is fairly moderate, at least compared to many. [You, for instance, toss personal insults around far more freely than I do.] Just because I disagree with you, I have no right even to engage you? That’s amazing, when you think about it.
There are quite a few so-called ‘anti-birthers’ on these threads. I’m not the world’s biggest fan of any of them, but I’ll say this. At least the others are more than willing and able to engage. You alone say, ‘You worthless, waste-of-time poster—I don’t want to hear another peep out of you’.
It’s a discussion board. When you post things that pique a fellow poster’s interest, they may respond. Why, barring over-the-top rudeness, that should be verboten is more than I can understand.
No, it is evidence of a lack of due dilligence. Nancy Pelosi "Certified" him as meeting the eligibility requirements without ever having checked. That anyone took her word seriously just proves they were fools.
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.
The fact that an enemy makes it through the first gate, and the guards of the second gate regards this as evidence that he isn't an enemy and so therefore open the second gate, does not change the fact that the guards of the first gate didn't do their jobs properly in the first place! And you still have an ENEMY inside the gates!
You refer to a cascade of acceptance as proof of legitimacy when the fact is NOBODY has LOOKED AT IT! From the beginning, the word of serial liar Nancy Pelosi was accepted as proof when it was not.
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.
Their rulings are refuted by the fact that the arguments are not nonsense. This proves that those judges are ignorant, and that is all it proves. There has been NO WEIGHING of evidence in any court. PERIOD. Your side would quake in it's boots were there ever to be an actual weighing of the evidence.
So we have all the three branches of a dully-elected, civilian goverment unanimously judging that Obama is a legitimate president.
Acquiescence is only a judgment after the facts are weighed. They have not been weighed. Till they are weighed, its still an open question.
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.
You may keep telling yourself that fiction, but in all of human history, the military IS the force of government. It is fortunate for us that we train them to follow our laws, rather than our leaders. You would have it otherwise.
The founders set up a system of checks and balances within the civilian government designed to prevent something like that from happening. The military IS NOT part of this system. The only recourse military officers would have in such an (extremely unlikely) scenario is refuse to carry out the unconstitutional orders and resign in protest.
You would have the Military officers resign and let others take their place to continue marching us into re-education camps? And people wonder how the Germans could have gone so wrong. I suppose some mistakes must be repeated before some people get the message.
I disagree. The Military should refuse to obey such orders, and they should also refuse to resign. They have a constitution to defend.
www.obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com
Thanks!
Acting out of ignorance is not a substitute for acting with knowledgeable intent.
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.