200 US Generals, Admirals and others Just Stepped Up to Obama

Freedom Outpost ^ | 8/28/2015 | Tim Brown

[HomerBohn]

In an unprecedented move, 200 retired US generals, admirals and other political officials just took a stand against the unconstitutional policies of the Obama administration concerning his nuke deal with Islamic Iran.

A letter was received by Congress from 200 signatories, who served under Democratic and Republican administrations.

The Washington Post reports:

The letter is the latest in a blizzard of missives petitioning Congress either to support or oppose the agreement with Iran, which would lift sanctions if Iran pared back its nuclear program. Letters have come from ad hoc groupings of rabbis, nuclear scientists, arms-control and nonproliferation experts — and now, retired senior military officers, many of whom have worked in the White House during various administrations dating to the 1980s.

The letter, addressed to Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate and the House, is a response to one sent last week by three dozen retired senior military officers who support the nuclear deal.

"The agreement will enable Iran to become far more dangerous, render the Mideast still more unstable and introduce new threats to American interests as well as our allies," the letter states.

The letter was initiated by retired Admiral Leon A. "Bud" Edney after reading other retired officers who supported the agreement. Thirty-six retired US generals had previously signed a letter in which they supported the Obama / Iran deal.

"I looked at the letter they published, and thought it was very weak," Edney said. "I just don't agree with it."

Among those signing the letter are Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, Vice Adm. John Poindexter and retired Maj. Gen. Richard Secord.

The Times of Israel adds the words of retired vice commander of US Air Forces in Europe, Thomas McInerney:

"What I don't like about this is the number one leading radical Islamic group in the world is the Iranians," McInerney said.

"They are purveyors of radical Islam throughout the region and throughout the world. And we are going to enable them to get nuclear weapons. Why would we do that?" he asked.

While Congress is set to vote on the deal next month, they have put forth unconstitutional legislation concerning Obama's Iran deal that would require two-thirds vote to nullify the deal. That legislation is null and void as far as the Constitution is concerned, as they had no authority to issue such legislation. In order for such a treaty to be valid, the Senate is to advise such negotiations between the president and a foreign entity and then they are to approve (not strike down) the treaty with two-thrids majority.

According to Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, the President,

"… SHALL HAVE POWER, BY AND WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE, TO MAKE TREATIES, PROVIDED TWO-THIRDS OF THE SENATORS PRESENT CONCUR…"

Additionally, Article VI, Clause 2 states,

"THIS CONSTITUTION, AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF; AND ALL TREATIES MADE, OR WHICH SHALL BE MADE, under the Authority of the United States,SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; AND THE JUDGES IN EVERY STATE SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY, ANY THING IN THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING. [EMPHASIS ADDED]"

This deal, my fellow countrymen, is not just the work of the domestic enemy Barack Hussein Obama, but of multiple traitors to the people and Constitution of the united States in Congress who passed the legislation that sought to alter the constitution in an unconstitutional manner.

[vette6387]

“I think something is wrong with your caps lock button...”

I think hosepipe has another “button’ with which he’s having difficulty!
His panic button is stuck!

[Godebert]

You are correct. Their oath is to their green govt. check instead of to defending the Constitution.

[dandiegirl]

Wonder if they have seen the information about all those dem congressmen taking bribes to vote for the deal?

[vortec94]

Do you have a clue how silly you appear? You don’t want to start that fiight as Obama isn’t either. It simply doesn’t matter anymore. Nobody cares.

[Calpublican]

CRS, Nov. 14, 2011: The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

[Iron Munro]

Their names will just go on Obama’s enemy list at the IRS and Homeland Security’s Terrorist Watch List.

[Sivad]

In fairness, how do you know that all two
hundred of these general officers were still
active military when this travesty of a deal
was initiated? As to current active Admirals
and Generals opposed to the deal, even those
about to retire risk pension tampering with this
outlaw administration in power. They respond to
nobody’s opinion but their own.

[Ozark Tom]

When has a general ever initiated a coup d’état? It’s a political selection posting process for that rank. A full-bird colonel is a different story.

[crazydad]

I just watched a series called the Wehrmact about how complicit the regular Generals were with Hitler and how when they were losing the war that is when they started talking and worrying about the outcome.
This is the same thing, these men should have stepped in when they were in power and were witnessing what this POS POTUSS was doing to America. Far to Little, far to late.
They should have done their Constitutional duty.

[Rome2000]

Bingo!

[Signalman]

Easy for retired generals and admirals to speak out. Where were they when they were on active duty?

[Godebert]

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

In defining what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, we do not seek to read into the Constitution that which was not intended and written there by the Framers. Despite popular belief, the Fourteenth Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text nor in its intent. Some add an implication to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment by equating the amendment’s “citizen” to Article II’s “natural born Citizen.” But nowhere does the 14th Amendment confer “natural born citizen” status. The words simply do not appear there, but some would have us believe they are implied. But the wording of the Amendment is clear in showing that it confers citizenship only and nothing more.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

[TADSLOS]

Ted Cruz can cashier the current crop of Obamites wearing stars and bring these guys back on active duty.

[SoFloFreeper]

yeah, but a small number of lickspittles in the military and congress are going to support hussein and valerie and the mullahs.

the demon rat party often gripes about the elites who try and rule against the will of the people...but they are the very ones who exhibit the elitist behaviour.

[MikeSteelBe]

“Congress has the constitutional authority to remove corrupt presidents from office. But the corrupt, post 17th Amendment-ratification Senate is evidently not willing to work with the corrupt House to impeach and remove lawless Obama from office.”

Congrees has a whole lot more power than that:

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/120/punishment-of-treason

They can execute the worthless traitors, but since they are complicit in the treason, nothing will get done. The National Socialist Democrats for Assassinating Cracker Policemen will continue to get our best and finest slaughtered in the streets.

The next time the NBP or NOI take to the streets armed, they need to walk straight into an “L” shaped enfilade of belt-fed death.

[LucyT]

It’s the generals and admirals who have NOT retired that count. And zer0 has cherry picked those and fired the rest.

A retired general with no troops can cross the Rubicon all he wants with no effect.

Check out article.

Thanks, JJ.

[Eddie01]

Someone else turned me on to this, but it makes perfect sense.

The Iran deal is nothing more than political quid pro quo. Iran is a huge new market for the west and Obama wants to kick the doors open for his cronies.

America’s Nation Security means literraly nothing to him.

That’s the simple reality.

[azishot]

It’s the generals and admirals who have NOT retired that count.

They're the ones I'm waiting for, too.

[hosepipe]

I think something is wrong with your caps lock button...

---

Sometimes but not usually..

[hosepipe]

Cruz is NOT a natural born Citizen. He is NOT eligible to be the CIC.

---

Like OBAMA?....... Duh..