Posted on 02/23/2009 6:47:18 PM PST by Joiseydude
A U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq has called President Obama an "impostor" in a statement in which he affirmed plans to join as plaintiff in a challenge to Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief.
The statement was publicized by California attorney Orly Taitz who, along with her Defend Our Freedom Foundation, is working on a series of legal cases seeking to uncover Obama's birth records and other documents that would reveal whether he meets the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
"As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States," wrote Scott Easterling in a "to-whom-it-may-concern" letter.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH ABOUT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IN HIS OWN WORDS
NOW WE KNOW WHAT A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER DOES
OBAMA, THE STOCK MARKET, AND ENERGY
THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH ABOUT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S UPBRINGING
YES.
535 members of Congress.
Is there one honest man/woman?
May The LORD go before him. HE knows the truth.
He's an officer, he did not take that oath, well at least he took the officer's oath *after* taking the oath of enlistment, but are discharged from that upon being commissioned.. Most officers are *technically* enlisted during their pre-commissioning training. I was, from '71 to '73, then I took the commissioning oath, that I posted above.
That oath has not changed since 1868, the enlisted oath was changed in 1962 and 1950, but had been the same as the 1790 enlisted/officer's oath, until that 1950 change.
The "obeying orders" part was taken out of the Officer's oath in 1862. From 1790 to 1862, it had an "obey orders" provision, but no "support the Constitution" part which it did have for one year 1780 to 1790.
Good summary table here
Interesting stats sent to my sister by a friend:
Whatever your politics, however you lean and however you feel about the Bush administration, this report is interesting.
As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics:
The annual fatalities, by any cause, of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:
1980 — 2,392 (Carter)
1981 — 2,380 (Reagan)
1984 — 1,999 (Reagan)
1988 — 1,819 (Reagan)
1989 — 1,636 (George H W)
1990 — 1,508 (George H W)
1991 — 1,787 (George H W)
1992 — 1,293 (George H W)
1993 — 1,213 (Clinton)
1994 — 1,075 (Clinton)
1995 — 2,465 (Clinton)
1996 — 2,318 (Clinton)
1997 — 817 (Clinton)
1998 — 2,252 (Clinton)
1999 — 1,984 (Clinton)
2000 — 1,983 (Clinton)
2001 — 890 (George W)
2002 — 1,007 (George W)
2003 — 1,410 (George W)
2004 — 1,887 (George W)
2005 — 919 (George W)
2006 — 920 (George W)
2007 — 899 (George W)
Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,107 deaths
George W years (2001-2007): 7,932 deaths
Are you surprised when you look at these figures? They indicate the loss from the two latest Middle East conflicts are less than the loss of military personnel during Clinton’s presidency when America wasn’t even involved in a war
— unless you include Bosnia and Mogadishu, Somalia.
(Remember “Blackhawk Down”?)
Even more surprising is that in 1980, during Carter presidency, there were 2,392 US military fatalities!
These figures appear to in dicate many members of our media and politicians pick and choose the information on which they report — that they present only those “facts” that support their agenda.
Consider the latest census of Americans. It shows the following distribution of American citizens by race:
European descent 69.12 percent
Hispanic 12.50 percent
Black 12.30 percent
Asian 3.70 percent
Native American 1.00 percent
Other 2.60 percent
Many members of the media lead us to believe the military death ratio is off-balance compared to the distribution by race in America. Here are the fatalities by race over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom.
European descent 74.31 percent
Hispanic 10.74 percent
Black 9.67 percent
Asian 1.81 percent
Native American 1.09 percent
Other 0.33 percent
Surprised again? Hopefully, intelligent Americans can decipher — the facts from the spin, the spinners from the leaders, those who seek even more power from those that seek
justice, the dividers from the uniters. These statistics are published by the Congressional Research Service and may be confirmed at: www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
This soldier is my hero, as a 17-year old (hope to be) FBI Soecial Agent, I know that NO ONE is above the law, and we citizens have the God given right to know if our Commander in Chief meets EVERY requirement of the US Constitution for President. Not only that but not even Mr.Obama’s popularity can protect him from being impeached.
God Bless this soldier and everyone helping him.
God Bless America!
And God Speed!
Awesome post!
proudly...
Yes, all of them...they either stay bought; or state up front that they are only for rent or lease.
Just curious here. I know for a fact that President Obama has not proven he is eligible, and that there is some concern his mother did not give birth in the US of A.
But does anyone actually KNOW that he is NOT eligible?
Don't get me wrong: I think all nominees for POTUS should have to prove their constitutional eligibility. He did not, and he should have, and still should. But there is no true evidence that he is not eligible, correct? I am not counting an elderly lady in Africa saying she witnessed his birth there - that could have been a misstatement.
bttt
And it will be denied. Next?
If he has standing then what are the real damages he's suffering?
This officer could argue that absent proof that the order comes from legal authority, he places himself in jeopardy of being accused of murder, because if he kills someone offensively, and he did not have the standing of an armed combatant following legal orders, then he is simply a criminal.
There are hundreds of layers of authority between this officer and Obama. The orders come from his immediate superior. How do you show that they aren't a legal authority?
From a legal standpoint, if Obama tries to simply discharge him, then that opens a huge door for everyone else to get out. It also creates problems for FBI, Secret Service, etc. to be in very questionable status in following orders. What then is status of all Presidential appointees, etc, and their orders to their staffs.
Obama won't "simply discharge" him, nor will the Army. They will charge him, try him, convict him, and punish him. Don't think so? Ask Lieutenant Watanada or Private New or any of the others who decided they could decide what orders were valid and what were not.
From a PR standpoint, if Obama tries to argue standing, accept the copy, or forced discharge, they open door for huge PR campaign, which is exactly what this officer wants!
He's left himself open for being charged with any number of infractions. I guarantee you that he will have standing in his court martial.
Among other things someone who can show he or she has suffered damages by Obama's actions that are real and concrete, and not theoretical or conjectural. What are the real damages this officer has suffered?
The orders will come from his company commander, his battalion commander, his brigade and division commanders. Are you suggesting they aren't legitimate?
And the Army historically takes a dim view of soldiers who decide for themselves what orders are valid and what are not. There are a hundred layers between this officer and Obama, and every order in at least 99 of those layers are valid. He ignores them at his own peril.
It's a dirty job but somebody's got to do it.
The Army takes a dim view of soldiers who decide for themself what order is valid and what is not. His company, battalion, brigade, and divigion commanders all will issue him legal orders. He disobeys them at his own risk.
Now if Obama ever gives him a direct order then he may have a case, but I kind of doubt that will happen.
present
You’re just no fun are you? /s/
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.