Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Retired general, lieutenant colonel join reservistís lawsuit over Obama's birth status
Ledger-Enquirer ^ | July 15, 2009 | Lily Gordon

Posted on 07/15/2009 5:09:42 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last
To: real_patriotic_american

Obama’s thinking he could spread the wealth around to help him keep his illegal presidency.


21 posted on 07/15/2009 6:33:09 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Correct! He is buying votes by starting a worldwide welfare system and over taxing people who work.


22 posted on 07/15/2009 6:48:33 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american
From the application for injunction . . .

An officer does not swear to obey the orders of the President. Rather, he assumes the obligation to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic (for example, a possible Presidential Usurper, if it were shown by clear-and-convincing evidence that a person took the office under false pretenses of constitutional qualifications). The Founding Fathers had the foresight to protect and secure against a situation such as that now facing the United States. The officer oath is a safeguard to protect the Constitution against a corrupt elected government. Officers have an obligation to defend the Constitution.

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/

23 posted on 07/15/2009 6:52:57 PM PDT by Faith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american

I wonder just who is paying for O’s legal fees to avoid producing his BC. Probably us.


24 posted on 07/15/2009 6:56:44 PM PDT by mickie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Faith

Yes, I was reading that. Against enemies foreign or domestic? I’m trying to understand which one Obama was.

You wrote-
“From the application for injunction . . .

An officer does not swear to obey the orders of the President. Rather, he assumes the obligation to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic (for example, a possible Presidential Usurper, if it were shown by clear-and-convincing evidence that a person took the office under false pretenses of constitutional qualifications). The Founding Fathers had the foresight to protect and secure against a situation such as that now facing the United States. The officer oath is a safeguard to protect the Constitution against a corrupt elected government. Officers have an obligation to defend the Constitution.

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/


25 posted on 07/15/2009 6:56:55 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mickie

If it’s his money, he’ll be out soon. The money is probably coming from campaign donations and our tax dollar.

You wrote-
“I wonder just who is paying for O’s legal fees to avoid producing his BC. Probably us.”


26 posted on 07/15/2009 6:59:28 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american

I think Taitz really has something going, but in my humble opinion its not the birth certificate or lack thereof.

My personal opinion is Mr NoBama is about to soil his unpresidential pants about the 39 Social Security cards issue that the PI working for Dr Taitz managed to dig up.

I cannot imagine the massive blast of negative public opinion that would descend upon him IF the allegation of his use of a SS # showing him to be 119 years of age and that originally belonged to someone else was PROVEN to be true.

He can dig up old printers and paper and forge a passable BC, I don’t think even he could escape the massive amount of paper proof that would have been generated by a Social Security numbers use over multiple years.


27 posted on 07/15/2009 7:06:01 PM PDT by flash2368 (Scary Times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: flash2368

Orly DOES have something going here. The birth certificate is exposing so many other possible crimes including the 39 social security numbers. On top of that, hopefully, Pelosi will also be removed from office for the coverup.


28 posted on 07/15/2009 7:15:45 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american

There are three lines of defence that protect this country from tyranny.

The first line of defence is our governments obedience to the Constitution.

Sadly as we see a man who should not be president doing things like funding the losses of banks, and taking control over businesses like the auto industry, and the healthcare system, and quite literally figuring out how to tax the very gases we exhale,the first line of defence has been breached.

The second line of defence is our military oath to defend the constitution, the sacred oath our individual soldiers swear to when they become part of the defence of this country.

We are at a point inn time when that oath is about to be tested, as it was tested in 1861, our nation’s defenders will have to decide if the constitution has been violated or abided by as has only happened twice in this nation’s history.

The last line of defence is the American citizen himself, are we going to allow someone to hold the office of the presidency that has violated the constitution requirements for the office of the presidency.

In this heady times we have seen our government fail to obey the Constitution, we are seeing a single member of our military dare to request proof that Obama is legally eligible to be president, and we may yet set American Citizens fight against tyranny.

Such exciting times are these.......


29 posted on 07/15/2009 7:26:31 PM PDT by usmcobra (Your chances of dying in bed are reduced by getting out of it, but most people still die in bed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: flash2368

please tell me what you are referring to about the SS cards....have not heard anything about this.


30 posted on 07/15/2009 7:33:03 PM PDT by oust the louse (This Country now has a smelly BO problem.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american
The Founding Fathers had the foresight to protect and secure against a situation such as that now facing the United States. The officer oath is a safeguard to protect the Constitution against a corrupt elected government. Officers have an obligation to defend the Constitution.

The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the “I was only following orders” defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound to any French Port.

However, when President John Adams wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port.

Pursuant to the President's instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port.

The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders “act at their own peril” when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal. Or in Obama's case -- (possible) illegitimate order from a illegitimate CinC.

See more on the 1799 President John Adams case (the "Flying Fish" case) here:

Reports of cases argued and adjudged in the Supreme Court of the United States (Google Books)

31 posted on 07/15/2009 7:40:44 PM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: rudman

hi -

I wrote you a response on the DoD orders Soldier fired thread - below comes from a related thread about other officers joining the lawsuit. The comment below refers to USSC law from the beginning of our Republic, specifically about officers following “illegal” orders.

JG

The Founding Fathers had the foresight to protect and secure against a situation such as that now facing the United States. The officer oath is a safeguard to protect the Constitution against a corrupt elected government. Officers have an obligation to defend the Constitution.

The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the “I was only following orders” defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound to any French Port.

However, when President John Adams wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port.

Pursuant to the President’s instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port.

The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders “act at their own peril” when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal. Or in Obama’s case — (possible) illegitimate order from a illegitimate CinC.

See more on the 1799 President John Adams case (the “Flying Fish” case) here:

Reports of cases argued and adjudged in the Supreme Court of the United States (Google Books)


32 posted on 07/15/2009 7:57:19 PM PDT by Jacksonian Grouch (God has granted us Freedom; we owe Him our courage in return)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: coconutt2000

I agree. How hard is it to get that long form. Twenty bucks or so would solve the issue.


33 posted on 07/15/2009 8:24:04 PM PDT by Lumper20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american
retired
34 posted on 07/15/2009 8:25:09 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american

I would drag the State Department into this as he must have had a passport prior to 2009. Maybe that is Hillary’s job to cover up.


35 posted on 07/15/2009 8:39:24 PM PDT by eyedigress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: usmcobra

Finally this week, this case has broken open. In California, Judge Carter informs Orly that the case will go to trial. In the Georgia case, Obama revokes Major Cook’s deployment and has him fired from his civilian defense job. Obama may have performed some very, very foolish strategy.


36 posted on 07/16/2009 4:56:53 AM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: BP2

This whole issue against Obama is really beginning to grow some legs. Add to it that Obama didn’t have the authority to revoke the Major’s deployment, had him fired, and Obama’s COLB is probably a forgery (etc., etc., etc.,), and soon he’ll be packing his bags for a move out of the White House.

You wrote-
“The Founding Fathers had the foresight to protect and secure against a situation such as that now facing the United States. The officer oath is a safeguard to protect the Constitution against a corrupt elected government. Officers have an obligation to defend the Constitution.
The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the “I was only following orders” defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound to any French Port.

However, when President John Adams wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port.

Pursuant to the President’s instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port.

The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders “act at their own peril” when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal. Or in Obama’s case — (possible) illegitimate order from a illegitimate CinC.

See more on the 1799 President John Adams case (the “Flying Fish” case) here:

Reports of cases argued and adjudged in the Supreme Court of the United States (Google Books)”


37 posted on 07/16/2009 5:08:29 AM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: eyedigress

The whole upper circle of Democrats are probably covering it up!

You wrote-
“Maybe that is Hillary’s job to cover up.”


38 posted on 07/16/2009 5:15:02 AM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american

Taitz misspelled General Childers’ first name in the filing. She is actually a he, and he spells it with two r’s and two l’s. That will get the injunction thrown out right off the bat


39 posted on 07/16/2009 5:20:13 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Orly Taitz is a woman!


40 posted on 07/16/2009 5:23:02 AM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson