Replies

Has anyone in Congress - which has the power to remove a President - or the Supreme Court shown any doubts? Has any case gone forward?

No, and no. Therefor, the military needs to assume he is legitimate unless and until someone demonstrates a reason he is not.

An officer refusing to obey GWB in 2001 would have been full of crap. So is this one.

An officer refusing to obey GWB in 2001 would have been full of crap. So is this one.

Except the SCOTUS and lower courts determined Bush's legitimacy, can't say the same for the bamster.

There is not one shred of evidence to suggest bammie is eligible per the Constitution.

Unless you are taking his word for it?

Has anyone in Congress - which has the power to remove a President - or the Supreme Court shown any doubts? Has any case gone forward?

There is something to be said for intimidation, shouted down by the media, don't care, and just plain cowardice.

No, and no. Therefor, the military needs to assume he is legitimate unless and until someone demonstrates a reason he is not.

Yes yes. That's is up to everyone of them and their good conscious if they believe otherwise. Obama should be the one who should have proven that he is eligible for office because credible and a overwhelmingly preponderance of evidence say he is not.

An officer refusing to obey GWB in 2001 would have been full of crap. So is this one.

That crap you smell is being perpetrated at the White House.

Mr Rogers said: "Therefor, the military needs to assume he is legitimate unless and until someone demonstrates a reason he is not."

By "the military" do you mean every single member of the military? Or just some of them? If the military has a DUTY not to obey unConstitutional orders, just how many of the military must observe this duty in order to question the legitimacy of Obama? What's the magic number that would make the questioning of Obama's legitimacy into the performance of a DUTY?

An officer refusing to obey GWB in 2001 would have
been full of crap. So is this one.

Perhaps in 2001, but as our good FRiend Non-Sequitur has pointed out, the cases of Army soldiers Michael New and Ehren Watada seem to indicate government is rather WEAK in the end on soldiers who disobey orders.

Most FReepers would be STAUNCHLY against seeing an American soldier wearing a United Nations beret, like these Italian soldiers below:

And yet, that's exactly what home-schooled Army medic Michael New of Conroe, Texas, refused to do in 1995. His case is in legal limbo last I heard. I personally support his action — he enlisted to defend the US, not the UN — and I think the VAST MAJORITY of FReepers would concur with this concept!

Conversely, 1st Lt Ehren Watada of Honolulu refused to follow Bush's orders in 2006 because he felt the war in Iraq was illegal and that, under the doctrine of command responsibility, would make Watada a “party to war crimes.”

I do NOT support his beliefs on this issue. But that does not matter anyway ... as Obama told Eric Holder's Justice Department to ask the 9th Circuit Court to DROP Watada’s case in May 2009.

Does 1st Lt Watada’s case — and Obama's subsequent dismissal of his case — potentially set precedence that could have bearing on Lt Col Lakin’s case? Yes, I think it may.

It seems from the Watada case dismissal that Obama is QUITE OKAY with Army officers who disobey orders to which they have OBJECTIONS, regardless of which President has issued those orders.

An officer refusing to obey GWB in 2001 would have been full of crap. So is this one.

Really? Someone who served his country for 18 years is full of crap? Obama has never served anyone but his ego, illegal drugs,Islam and Chicago corruption.

All obama has to do is end this with a showing of his birth certificate. There will be more willing to stand up and ask for a simple document we all have to show to live in the United States as citizens. Obama is not above the law. Rules are as much for him as they are for us.