Skip to comments.U.S. soldier gagged on prez's eligibility
Posted on 03/03/2009 7:19:10 PM PST by Man50D
A member of the U.S. military whose suspicions about Barack Obama's eligibility to be president prompted him to sign onto a legal demand being sent to Attorney General Eric Holder has been silenced.
Attorney Orly Taitz, the California activist who through her DefendOurFreedoms.us foundation is assembling the case, told WND today she's been informed one of the members of the military has been ordered by commanding officers not to speak with media.
The officer's identity was withheld to prevent further actions against him.
However, Taitz confirmed to WND there would be no lack of plaintiffs in her action, which challenges Obama to prove by what authority he operates as commander in chief.
Another active-duty soldier, who identified himself as Staff Sgt. Alan Craig James, volunteered to be identified publicly as a plaintiff in the case, Taitz said.
She said she already has a list of 101 volunteers in her case demanding Obama's proof of eligibility.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
The pictures are too much and are breaking my Half-Irish Heart. It feels like I am living in a parallel universe./Just Asking - seoul62........
What, does he appear to have a black eye (his left eye)?
Especially if those young troops were in attendance :)
Not sure bro...I watched it live (and weeped) but I’ll do a quick Utube search and gladly see if I can link ya.
I’m sure, but there are decent people as well in those areas.
I worry for them.
Me too...especially seeing the difference in to the CiC responses. When I was a young troop, any chance to be around even a 3 or 4 star General would have elicited excitement...these guys are forced to be somewhere they DO NOT WANT TO BE!
Which means you have as much compassion in your heart as you have love for the Constitution and our country.
I don't want to be dramatic, but many of our Founding Fathers, if you look at those who signed the Declaration of Independence, went through tragic, tragic loss...including family!!!
My son will soon be an officer. He will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The whole scenario breaks my heart. Our men and women deserve better than Zero as Commander.
That’s a brilliant post. Kudos
You are not being dramatic.
Blood was shed then, and I’m sure it will be shed again.
I just hope there isn’t too much of it.
I joke around a lot and I gat very sarcastic and stupid at times, but my heart just breaks when I look at what’s happening.
Thank God for your jokes and sarcasm...they bring moments of happiness to others...please do not stop. As to saying stupid things at times, listen, I am the king of that but I take FR like I do Church - When two or more of us come together to talk about what is right or wrong, regardless of my level of knowledge, we should never take anything as stupid...That's why I signed up to FR - not only to be around like minded folks, but to LEARN...and boy, have I.
I think that falls under the old vestige of "Be careful what you wish for", huh???
IMHO In practice, it also applies to foreign dignitaries, the US Congress, and former Commanders in Chief. It can in theory be extended to local civilian officials as well (Ie the Mayor of Chicago).
That must’ve been a hard one for General Honore to swallow when dealing with the Mayor & Governor during Katrina.
Hm, I disagree.
Mostly because as an enlisted-man myself, if Obama claims the authority of CiC granted to the position as president by the Constitution, then he is also bound by its VERY generous and lax requirements: that he be a natural-born citizen, and that he be a minimum of 35 years of age.
If he is unable/unwilling to counter a charge of ineligibility, then it is my belief that the military should oust him. There is no place for that sort of uncertainty in the chain-of-command... it is a double protection that all enlisted and officers are sworn to defend the Constitution FIRST, before any mention of the President.
I loathed Clinton extremely and considered him (up until 0bama got “elected”) to be the worst President the US has ever had.
0bama tops him in evil intent, deceit, duplicity, evil association, habits and agenda. I don’t know that 0bama has ever raped a woman (or anyone else), but that’s about the only crime in which Clinton surpasses him. As far as we know. 0bama makes Clinton look like a petty thief compared to a masss murderer.
just “no” smiles.
IE - The right to reproduce... the right to choose our own mates... the right to lead our families as we see fit...
You understand better than most here do about the oaths. Defending the Constitution is foremost.
I found this on line. It gives the perspective of one or two who was at Cherry Point Air Station. I found the comments below interesting. Admittedly, I know nothing about this website, but it seems to be about current and retired Marines.
The primary oath is to defend and protect the Constitution, so if someone is taking this stand, they in my view they would be upholding their oath, by verifying the CIC is in step with not only the Constitution but also his oath.
The Republic cannot survive if the laws are not applied equally, whether someone is the President or a Private, the Law must be the Law...
oops... extra “They” in there for no additional charge ;-)
Now I know the meaning of “Ignorance is Bliss”.
Seems like I was a lot happier before I woke up.
If soldiers are free to interpret the Constitution as they see fit, then we don’t have an Army. Also in that oath is a pledge to obey the orders of the officers appointed over them. They don’t get to decide if that officer was appointed legally or not - that’s someone else’s job.
That is correct - they may not participate publicly for or against the civilian authority - to do otherwise is to violate the UCMJ.
>You understand better than most here do about the oaths. Defending the Constitution is foremost.
Thank you; but, truth is, I should, as I have given it myself.
To give an oath without any weight to the possibilities in the future, all the ‘what ifs’, is stupid and foolish.
May many more Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Marines speak out and demand proof!
Doesn't work that way my friend. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you're correct and Obama is ineligible to be president. I personally believe it's a red herring, but for the sake of argument, let's assume you're correct.
He is still at this moment in time the POTUS and the Commander in Chief of the armed forced. He will remain as such until he is removed by those with the authority to do so.
One of the few times I agreed with Alan Keyes was when he articulately explained why Michael New was was rightly court martialed after refusing to wear the U.N. peacekeeper uniform. It didn't matter if New was correct constitutionally, and Alan believed he was. The problem was that New did not have the authority to make that determination for himself. In order to maintain discipline, the military simply cannot every soldier making constitutional determinations. It would not, and can not work.
First I’m not your friend.
Second you argument becomes circular.
Third, I agreed with Keys tnen and I agree with him now.
If Orly Taitz says it, it must be true! Especially when she says it to WorldNutDaily.
It is claimed that Regulation 138 of The Uniform Code of Military Justice allows for some forms of criticism of superiors.
You and a few others keep ignoring one thing about the pledge... the Oath "to Protect and Defend the Constitution" comes first and it was put there by the founders for a very specific reason; governments can become corrupt, and when they do, the Consitution gives very specific power to "The People" up to and including replacing the government.
When a government attempts to subjugate it citizens then it is up to EVERY single solitary American Citizen (including military members) to make the decision... is this constitutional.
Also in that oath is a pledge to obey the orders of the officers appointed over them.
and that would be false, "to knowingly violate the laws, rights, Blah, Blah following the orders of a superior officer, ignorance is no excuse... Blah, Blah and is punishable...blah... blah... blah"
The Secretary of Transportation used to be in charge of the Coast Guard, before it was moved to Homeland Security a few years ago.
Send them to Leavenworth, that’s where they belong.