Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. soldier gagged on prez's eligibility
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | March 03, 2009 | Bob Unruh

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 ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; fraud; obama; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 next last

1 posted on 03/03/2009 7:19:11 PM PST by Man50D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Man50D

That isn’t surprising. What is surprising is the fact they said nothing about dropping the case.


2 posted on 03/03/2009 7:20:42 PM PST by cripplecreek (The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
great dane This dog has to wake up soon...more and more people are asking why not show the damn birth certificate. This so called open person and administration won`t let us see ANY records for this man and we are supposed to just be cool with that?
3 posted on 03/03/2009 7:26:08 PM PST by He who knoweth not his name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Man50D; LucyT; STARWISE; BP2; unspun; seekthetruth; ExTexasRedhead; Frantzie; Chief Engineer; ...

ping-

sounds pretty good!


4 posted on 03/03/2009 7:32:02 PM PST by BonRad (As Rome goes so goes the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

I have heard that officers cannot speak against the President or Cabinet Secretaries at any time or they will be subjected to a court martial. Can anyone verify?


5 posted on 03/03/2009 7:32:04 PM PST by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye

Officers cannot. But, enlisted can.

But enlisted still have to follow the orders of the officers appointed above them.


6 posted on 03/03/2009 7:34:47 PM PST by Jet Jaguar (Atlas Shrugged Mode: ON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: He who knoweth not his name

Why yes, you are supposed to ‘be cool with that’. You see, Obama’s voters are sheepel and they expect you to be one also. You are behind the times. That Constitutional contract is no longer to be cited because it might interfer with the ascendency of the affirmative action kenyan klown they worship. This is affirmative action at its highest form ... you better remain PC and not challenge the almost black Marxist messiah, if you know what’s good for you.


7 posted on 03/03/2009 7:37:46 PM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: He who knoweth not his name

Yes, I am shocked they have not shut this down. Either

1. They can’t stop it, the military seems very cognizant (more than out politicans) about the rule-of-law
2. They can’t stop it and will let it run its course knowing the repercussions for these officers are severe and that they know the consequence of their action and honor their right to do this
3. Back them, quietly and within the law.

The new angle under the 9th amendment that has some latin phrase with it seems to be gaining some traction.


8 posted on 03/03/2009 7:41:17 PM PST by Sequoyah101 (Get the bats and light the hay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

If he is an ineligble POTUS then they have violated no law or rule.

Orly needs an experienced attorney running her cases ASAP. She is trying very hard but she need an experienced attorney running the cases and making the legal calls. Wealthy Americans and talk show hosts should be raising millions for this effort before O destroys America.


9 posted on 03/03/2009 7:43:43 PM PST by Frantzie (Boycott GE - they own NBC, MSNBC, CNBC & Universal. Boycott Disney - they own ABC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
He may be silenced, but we are not. Neither is Orly.

GOOD STUFF!

10 posted on 03/03/2009 7:46:24 PM PST by Candor7 (Fascism? All it takes is for good men to say nothing, ( member NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: He who knoweth not his name
Better be careful or somebody might call you a birther

and I want to know if there nothing to this then why is obama spending so much on this

11 posted on 03/03/2009 7:46:55 PM PST by Charlespg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BonRad

This mite get nasty for the folks in the Military...


12 posted on 03/03/2009 7:47:34 PM PST by 1COUNTER-MORTER-68 (THROWING ANOTHER BULLET-RIDDLED TV IN THE PILE OUT BACK~~~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sequoyah101
The new angle under the 9th amendment that has some latin phrase with it seems to be gaining some traction.

Can you expound? The ninth is an underused amendment meant to say, forgive the casualness, all other rights people should have. How does it tie in here?

13 posted on 03/03/2009 7:48:17 PM PST by IrishPennant ("We're surrounded...That simplifies our problem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: IrishPennant

The premise is Quo Warranto

Please see the article referenced for further information and follow the links as appropriate. Meanwhile,

According to the online Constitution.org resource: “The common law writ of quo warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States, and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the Ninth Amendment which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents.”


14 posted on 03/03/2009 7:52:00 PM PST by Sequoyah101 (Get the bats and light the hay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
I hope one or more courts don't pull any more of that "no standing" garbage.

If members of the military don't have standing to bring a suit in a case like this, I don't know who does.

Of course, we ordinary plebians have no standing in anything any more, as we find out every day.

Leni

15 posted on 03/03/2009 7:52:05 PM PST by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye

Article 88, UCMJ:

“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Elements.
(1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;
(2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;
(3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and
(4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element
(5) That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.
Explanation.
The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither “Congress” nor “legislature” includes its members individually. “Governor” does not include “lieutenant governor.” It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, ad-verse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.
Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not rdinarily be charged. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.
Lesser included offense. Article 80—attempts
Maximum punishment. Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.


16 posted on 03/03/2009 7:54:49 PM PST by redlegplanner ( No Representation without Taxation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar
Would you rather be a Hammer or a Nail, JJ?

Aricle 88 of the UCMJ is a catch all.....'Contempt for officials'.
17 posted on 03/03/2009 7:57:12 PM PST by BIGLOOK (Keelhaul Congress! It's the sensible solution to restore Command to the People.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sequoyah101

It’s one thing to try to implement socialism via the budget, the DOW & Porkulus.

It’s another to try to dismantle the military & replace it with the National Service Storm Troopers. That’s the one crazy thing they haven’t tried to do ... yet.

Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice precludes commissioned officers from using “contemptuous words” towards the President; VP; Congress; Secretary of Defense; military Secretaries or (go figure) the Secretary of Transportation; or towards the Governor of a state where he/she is present or on duty.


18 posted on 03/03/2009 8:01:22 PM PST by Belle22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK

Well aware of the UCMJ. Just saying.

888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

889. ART. 89 DISRESPECT TOWARD SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER

Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.


19 posted on 03/03/2009 8:04:08 PM PST by Jet Jaguar (Atlas Shrugged Mode: ON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK
Not seeing how this would be contempt...

con·tempt Listen to the pronunciation of contempt Pronunciation: \kən-ˈtem(p)t\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin contemptus, from contemnere Date: 14th century 1 a: the act of despising : the state of mind of one who despises : disdain b: lack of respect or reverence for something2: the state of being despised3: willful disobedience to or open disrespect of a court, judge, or legislative body

Military personnel, sworn to protect and defend the Constitution have determined that there is cause to believe a Usurper has been appointed as their CiC. Granted, careers will be over if he is found a NBC, but I see no criminal charges, UCMJ or otherwise.

20 posted on 03/03/2009 8:04:36 PM PST by IrishPennant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

I do not support any soldier who has taken this position, although I believe that their position may be correct as a point of constitutional law.

Soldiers must bear true faith and allegience to the Constitution of the United States and to the Officers appointed over them. That includes the President of the United States, and until some competent authority declares that the President is not entitled to his office, they are bound by their oath to support him.

We cannot tolerate a Legion that may, for whatever reasons, declare its allegience to a Prelate or Caesar, in lieu of the legally constitued Government. If a soldier truly believes that he cannot serve the constituted Government, then he must resign. Officers may do this at any time after they have served their initial obligation. Enlisted members must wait until the period of their enlistment is expired. Once they have been discharged, then they may pursue their objections as may any citizen.

If I were sitting on their Court Martial, I would vote to convict, even though I sympathize with their cause. It has to work that way if we are to preserve the Republic.


21 posted on 03/03/2009 8:05:37 PM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: He who knoweth not his name

I hate to be the one to say this but.... that dog won’t hunt. ;-)


22 posted on 03/03/2009 8:06:12 PM PST by Kevmo ( It's all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: redlegplanner
" Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President "

That law only applies IF they are legitimate, eligible to be in that office.....
23 posted on 03/03/2009 8:08:21 PM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM .53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart, there is no GOD.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
Convincing post...what differentiates that from relieving a senior from duty for various reasons?

Again, I find your post somewhat convincing...asking the above almost rhetorically.

24 posted on 03/03/2009 8:11:50 PM PST by IrishPennant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
Obama and his ilk have underestimated the personal integrity and selflessness of the American soldier (sailor, marine and airman). Those not afraid to kick in doors in Fallujah are certainly not afraid of the consequences of standing up to a Chicago street punk.
25 posted on 03/03/2009 8:15:17 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
I do not support any soldier who has taken this position, although I believe that their position may be correct as a point of constitutional law.

The person who holds the office of POTUS is bound to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and pledges his or her allegiance to the Consitution. If someone who holds the office of POTUS fails to confirm he or she is an American citizen by producing something as simple as a valid birth certificate then it is reasonable for any American to defend the Constitution by using the rule of law to require the person in question to obey the Constitution by proving citizenship.
26 posted on 03/03/2009 8:18:57 PM PST by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Good place to remind everyone of the faces of young Marines at Zer0's little PR stunt at LeJeune recently:

Compare that to a true Commander in Chief


27 posted on 03/03/2009 8:19:04 PM PST by IrishPennant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
If I were sitting on their Court Martial, I would vote to convict, even though I sympathize with their cause. It has to work that way if we are to preserve the Republic.

No need, as "The Republic" will not be around much longer. The Kenyan will see to that.
28 posted on 03/03/2009 8:19:36 PM PST by zeller the zealot (The fix has been in for a long time. We just didn't know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: IrishPennant
Great photos in the sense of showing the contrast. I really feel for our people in uniform. They are having to go back to serving under a Clinton type of leadership.
29 posted on 03/03/2009 8:23:51 PM PST by HereInTheHeartland (I agree with Rick..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
You believe they are correct under the Constitution, but would convict them.

They swore to uphold the Constitution, yet you would convict them for doing so.

To preserve this Republic, it has to work the opposite of the way you believe.

You, as juror, would need to bone up on the rights you have in that capacity.

30 posted on 03/03/2009 8:26:53 PM PST by Syncro (Play by the rules and you're gonna miss all the fun--Jacky Don Tucker (Toby Keith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: IrishPennant

The Ninth Amendment (a part of the Bill of Rights) sometimes called the Silent Amendment provides us with all sorts of goodies like trial by jury, presumption of innocence until proven guilty etc.

Article the eleventh [Amendment IX]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Which of course means that just because there are enumerated rights for the people that these enumerated rights are not our only rights.


31 posted on 03/03/2009 8:27:04 PM PST by Sequoyah101 (Get the bats and light the hay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: HereInTheHeartland

Clinton type?

Clinton was a wise, virtuous saint compared to 0bama.


32 posted on 03/03/2009 8:27:35 PM PST by little jeremiah (Leave illusion, come to the truth. Leave the darkness, come to the light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Belle22

So long as those authorities are eligible to the offices.

If these authorities are not eligible and thus userpers it is the duty of the officers to defend the Constitution against those userpers isn’t it?


33 posted on 03/03/2009 8:29:42 PM PST by Sequoyah101 (Get the bats and light the hay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

The Officer’s Oath says NOTHING about bearing true faith and allegiance to Officers appointed over them. Their ONLY obligation (in the Oath) is to support and defend the Constitution. The NCO/Enlisted Oathe is a different matter, however.


34 posted on 03/03/2009 8:30:29 PM PST by sre1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
“Clinton was a wise, virtuous saint compared to 0bama.”

Lets hope that isn't true.

I have an intense dislike of the Clinton's to this day. The dislike they held for our folks in uniform, was at the top of my list.

The fact the Mr Clinton raped a woman ( at least one that is known) and got away with it is also near the top.

35 posted on 03/03/2009 8:44:59 PM PST by HereInTheHeartland (I agree with Rick..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: IrishPennant
Picture 191 of 500: second row, left of center... do you think that he's there under duress? Maybe it was a training accident.
36 posted on 03/03/2009 8:45:38 PM PST by kitchen (One battle rifle for each person, and a spare for each pair.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Sequoyah101

The duty is to uphold the Constitution, yes. As of now, eligibility is presumed, and he is considered duly elected. The higher up the ranks you go, the more the brass will take a VERY dim view of a “birther” challenge, because it undermines the chain of command & good order & discipline. (It is a disgrace that we don’t have a clear system to establish eligibility.) The article doesn’t clarify that the named plaintiffs of high rank are retired.

But it does occur to me: Let’s say an officer was charged with an Article 88 violation re: his speech about the President. The officer would then have standing to move to dismiss the charge, on the grounds that he was speaking of someone ineligible to be President.


37 posted on 03/03/2009 8:47:18 PM PST by Belle22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: kitchen

I would hope he never made it Scout Sniper School if I was giving a speech?


38 posted on 03/03/2009 8:56:33 PM PST by IrishPennant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: IrishPennant

A stunning contrast.


39 posted on 03/03/2009 8:57:00 PM PST by Califreak (1/20/13-Sunrise in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; IrishPennant
Ageed, JJ....Just saying,

The military Courts Martial have been infiltrated by civilian barristers lately, defending the likes of Lt. Ehren Watada in a case which he was charged with Articles 87, 88 and 133 (i.e. Missing Movement; Contempt for Official; Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer. There were more but only A.87 and A.133 were brought forward......and the case has yet to be brought to trial.

Now we have a new CIC, so what are the odds that Article 32 investigations won't be brought up against the Constitutional Objectors.
40 posted on 03/03/2009 9:00:16 PM PST by BIGLOOK (Keelhaul Congress! It's the sensible solution to restore Command to the People.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Califreak

Good tag line...hope it comes earlier :)


41 posted on 03/03/2009 9:02:11 PM PST by IrishPennant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK

Any change the Whistle Blowers Act spills over to the military????


42 posted on 03/03/2009 9:03:31 PM PST by IrishPennant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: IrishPennant

Me too, but if it does it will probably unleash a fury like we’ve never seen.

“Treason? Not eligible? We was robbed!”


43 posted on 03/03/2009 9:04:30 PM PST by Califreak (1/20/13-Sunrise in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Belle22

You bring up a very interesting point.

In a twisted sort of way it would almost be better if one of these soldiers was charged with something because then they would have an expedited route to securing a copy of the vault certificate to use in their defense.

I bet Obama is treading carefully regarding these soldiers because the last thing he wants to do is give them an opportunity to have his birth certificate issued to them. He just wants these case thrown out due to standing.


44 posted on 03/03/2009 9:05:17 PM PST by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK

Odds are close to zero.

We, as patriots, do not miss movements.

I am curious what LT Watada would say today.


45 posted on 03/03/2009 9:06:09 PM PST by Jet Jaguar (Atlas Shrugged Mode: ON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: He who knoweth not his name
more and more people are asking why not show the damn birth certificate.

That milquetoast retard Michael Steele should lead the charge.

None of these DC politicians have any balls.

46 posted on 03/03/2009 9:07:03 PM PST by Rome2000 (Peace is not an option)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
Soldiers must bear true faith and allegience to the Constitution of the United States and to the Officers appointed over them. That includes the President of the United States, and until some competent authority declares that the President is not entitled to his office, they are bound by their oath to support him.

You better take a second look at the difference between the oath of enlisted soldiers vs. officers. The officer oath is to support and defend the Constitution (against all enemies, foreign AND domestic). It says NOTHING about the President. Check it out. It was written that way for a reason.

47 posted on 03/03/2009 9:08:42 PM PST by CheneyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: IrishPennant
Worth a thousand words.

If I was POTUS MUZZIE HUSSEIN I wouldn't be reviewing any military parades from a grandstand.

48 posted on 03/03/2009 9:08:53 PM PST by Rome2000 (Peace is not an option)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: IrishPennant
My Irish brutha, where can I find the video of this? I started to watch but then the idolaters came in an interrupted my view.

I know it is 90 minutes but I wanted to see in particular when the messiah enters the dais. I understood that there was a muted response. CSPAN did not show this and cut directly to the speech. In fact there where points I felt were edited.

Thanks.

49 posted on 03/03/2009 9:08:55 PM PST by Vendome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Califreak
Me too, but if it does it will probably unleash a fury like we’ve never seen.

Big country...vast and wide...all the unrest would be in urban areas. Over turned cars, fires, etc. Sadly, civil unrest(ers) have the distinct problem of unleashing unrest upon their own people and neighborhoods. Those that fit in that category of potential rioters are still outnumbered 3 to 1 in this country....trying to be at least a little PC here.

If it spilled from urban to suburban and rural areas, the unrest would be stopped post-haste - IMHO only.

I am a hubby and father of a pre-teen. Afraid of the unrest but would welcome it in defense of what this country was founded on. Sorry for the preaching!!!!

50 posted on 03/03/2009 9:11:55 PM PST by IrishPennant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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