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

Skip to comments.

Cpt Connie Rhodes, MD files new complaint in Georgia seeking class action statuse
Federal District Court, Middle District of Georgia ^ | September 4, 2009 | Orly Taitz

Posted on 09/04/2009 11:36:07 AM PDT by Sibre Fan

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, and INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: 10 U.S.C. §938 and Army Regulation 27-10

COUNT I: DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF DUE TO UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES, ILLEGAL ORDERS, AND LACK OF ADMINISTRATIVE OR LEGAL REMEDY

COUNT II: INJUNCTION AGAINST RETALIATION FOR CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR STATUS

COUNT III: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT: EXECUTIVE ORDERS OF Jan. 21, 2009

COUNT IV: Declaratory Judgment & Permanent Injunction PLAINTIFF SEEKS A FIVE-PART DECLARATORTY JUDGMENT AS WELL AS A PERMANENT INJUNCTION TO PROTECT CONSCIENTIOUS DISOBEDIENCE TO UNLAWFUL ORDERS FROM RETALIATION

COUNT V: AN OFFICER’S RIGHT OR DUTY TO CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT?

COUNT VI: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT---5 U.S.C. §702, AND FEDERAL COMMON LAW apply to the PRESIDENT AS COMMANDER-in-CHIEF

COUNT VI: THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE PEOPLE; THE PATTERN OF RACKETEERING AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATION

COUNT VIII: CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS ACTIONABLE UNDER 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1988(a)(a)

(Excerpt) Read more at archive.org ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: article2section1; barackobama; bho44; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; colb; connierhodes; naturalborn; obamanoncitizenissue; orlytaitz; rhodes; taitz; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-217 next last
To: cynwoody
Thanks! Mystylplx is a major Obamabot haunting and hovering in Lucas Smith's YouTube video site. I posted my find of the original Wiki dual-date format for Kenya here in FR, and then on Lucas’ site, but it didn't take because I had a link in it which they don't allow. I suggested that someone (implying Lucas) could have hacked Wiki to align it with his BC. Soon after, Lucas pointedly placed a note on the front of his site referencing the Wiki dual-date format.

Mystylplx, who had personally been trumpeting the “defect” of the mm/dd/yyyy USA-style date format in the Lucas BC had a cow and went over to Wiki and changed the Kenya entry to reflect only dd/mm/yyyy (another commenter on Lucas'site caught her and she fessed up) but she didn't (or couldn't) change the original world map with Kenya in purple indicating dual date format use. That map is still there as of today.

As Mystylplx indicates, the original source for the dual date formats for Kenya was a Microsoft page which I think was a programming guide. Apparently someone at Microsoft has done worldwide research into date formats (of course) but Mystylplx tries to dis that research as being inadequate.

I hope that someone with more skill and access than I can look in the "way back" archived Wiki page to insure against any possiblility or charge that Lucas Smith messed with Wiki before Mystylplx messed with Wiki!

101 posted on 09/04/2009 9:04:35 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
I hope that someone with more skill and access than I can look in the "way back" archived Wiki page to insure against any possiblility or charge that Lucas Smith messed with Wiki before Mystylplx messed with Wiki!

No need to bother with the Wayback Machine. It's useful for gazing into the past of a lot of web sites, but it's quite useless for watching the Wikipedia. Wikipedia pages can change way faster than the Wayback Machine can possibly keep up.

But fortunately, the Wikipedia contains its own Wayback Machine, which is directly synchronized to changes. If you are wondering about the history of a Wikipedia article, simply click its History tab (here, in the current instance). It will show you when each past edit took place and allow you to compare any two versions to see what was changed.

102 posted on 09/04/2009 10:53:33 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
If you are a five star general and you are driving onto a military base, if the corporal at the gate doesn't ask you to show your papers, then he is likely to get demoted.

You really think that, do you?

103 posted on 09/05/2009 5:36:07 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank
But George Bush, Bill Clinton and DOD did not exert improper command influence to short circuit the court martial of those two. I am certain Hussein and/or his top level associates took action to have Stefan Cook’s orders changed. Hussein will NOT chance that a judge will allow the discovery motions that Cook’s or Rhodes legal defense might require.

Want to bet? Discovery is not an open-ended fishing expedition. The defense will have the right to request subpoenas of information they deem necessary to their case, but the court has to sign off on them. Captain Rhodes may claim that Obama's birth certificate is vital to their case but the chances of the court agreeing with that hover somewhere between zilch point sh*t and none. There are enough layers of command involved that if Rhodes get's court martialled then she'll get convicted and Obama will never even enter in to it.

104 posted on 09/05/2009 5:39:43 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody
Thanks for all of your help with Wiki editing history where I am a novice.

Following your links, there is clear evidence that Wiki showed a dual date format for Kenya before October 2008. The format is contested by a Wiki poster who doesn't support his objection, but his post affirms that the dual format for Kenya was there in Wiki before October 2008, which is well before Lucas Smith's public activity related to the Kenyan BC:

Wiki:

At the talk page of the map on Commons, it was said Spanish Basque and Pakistan may be big-endian. It also said Kenya and TZ may be US format, but that appears to not be the case. kwami (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Calendar_date#Kenya_uses_both.3F You state "Lucas Smith's forgery". Do you have any new forensic observations to base this opinion on, or is this just your opinion?

105 posted on 09/05/2009 8:53:03 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: jude24

The COLB has been proven a fake. Hawaii says they have seen the origonal, but have never released it, and further will not state that the COLB on the web is the same one that they have seen.

Grow a set pal...

All orders origonate from the CIC, commander in charge, which is the POTUS...

Evidently you do not know the Chain of Command, also you have not read the case file, I just finished reading it, and all your statements have been rendered moot.

Read the file then get back to us.


106 posted on 09/05/2009 9:57:42 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jude24
1. The State of Hawaii has authenticated his Certificate of Live Birth. That is game, set, match. Don't feed me the "he won't show the long form version" bullcrap. Not buying. Certified copies of State records are presumptively authentic in all courts of law.

I realize you didn't want to ruin your four day weekend getting worked up on FR about this Birth certificate issue... So, when you do come back I just want to make sure that you have the facts. What you wrote about the "authentication" of Barack's "Birth Certificate" is wrong. The state of Hawaii will NOT confirm that the "CertificatION of Live Birth" that is out on the web is authentic! There has been no document released by BHO that shows the hospital he was born in or the citizenship of both of his parents at birth. The birth certificate that he is refusing to release shows those two items. For a mere $10 he could release the document. The man is a fraud for proclaiming to be "transparent."

107 posted on 09/05/2009 11:11:19 AM PDT by missnry (The truth will set you free ... and drive liberals Crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; jude24; Kolokotronis; Lancey Howard

The war began under Pres. Bush who (1) no one questions the citizenship of, an (2) was authorized by Congress under a couple of joint resolutions.

The actions authorizing offense combat operations in Iraq and Afghan BOTH precede Obama’s swearing in and are a continuation of a long-standing “war.”

To allow individual service-people to determine if they will personally attend any war of their choice is to threaten the lives of those already deployed by (1) not offering them their time of recovery, and (2) to deny suitably trained replacements to fill vacant slots in units that are intricately designed to achieve a level of combat power based on all the parts being in place.

I’ll be damned if I’ll let some prima donna captain affect the safety of my son deployed overseas.

She should be BCD specialed and drummed out of service....which I personally think she’s hoping for, so she can attend to what is probably a more lucrative medical practice.


108 posted on 09/05/2009 6:13:09 PM PDT by xzins (Chaplain Says: Jesus befriends all who ask Him for help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: TXDuke; P-Marlowe; jude24; Kolokotronis
A military member is only required to follow a LAWFUL order.

Not exactly true. The manual for courts martial says a an order is to be presumed to be lawful. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/mcm.pdf

(a) Lawfulness of the order. (i) Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate

A lawful order is also one that is related to the normal conduct of military operations, and while the issue authority is important it is not the final word, because:

Authorization may be based on law, regulation, or custom of the service.

At risk here is:

However, the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.

109 posted on 09/05/2009 6:58:43 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Sibre Fan
Apparently, the president does not actually issue the orders. If I'm reading this correctly, they are issued by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Appendix M CJCS Deployment Preparation Orders, Deployment Orders, and Redeployment Orders

1. Purpose. A DEPLOYMENT PREPARATION ORDER or DEPLOYMENT ORDER can be issued by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, after authorization by the Secretary of Defense, to do the following:

a. Increase deployability posture of units

b. Decrease deployability posture of units

c. Deploy forces

d. Redeploy forces*

e. Direct any other action that would signal planned U.S. military action or its termination in response to a particular crisis event or incident

In an ongoing war, the change of CINCs is inconsequential to the already standing congressional authorization of the combat action itself.

So, a man (SecDef) tells another man (CJCS), both of whom have been approved by the Senate, to issue an order in the ongoing war.

I would argue strongly that this falls under military regulation, and that it is critical to the safety of our troops that individual deployees are not permitted to determine the authority of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Even if personally signed by the president, I would argue that the war/combat action, once it is authorized by Congress, must also demonstrate the unconstiutionality of the Congress that authorized.

110 posted on 09/05/2009 7:18:19 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
She should be BCD specialed and drummed out of service....which I personally think she’s hoping for, so she can attend to what is probably a more lucrative medical practice.

I suspect that the captain is willing to follow the order to deploy, however SOMEBODY has to have standing to challenge the authority of Obama to give legal orders if people suspect that because of his birth he is not legally eligible to give those orders.

If a military officer does not have standing to challenge the authority of the CIC, then nobody does.

Is that the way we set up the constitution?

If an imposter is sworn in as President, there is nobody on earth with the authority to challenge his status?

The constitution also says that the president must be removed from office after 8 years. What if Obama decides to pull a Zelaya? What if he, by executive order, decides the constitution does not prohibit him from appointing himself President for Life?

It can't happen here?

Think again.

111 posted on 09/05/2009 8:44:18 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: yadent

I think it’s called wire fraud. There seems to have been a lot of it ever since the One started his run for the White House.


112 posted on 09/05/2009 9:16:18 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: yadent

“Work with 2 individuals who have Hawaiian COLB’s,...”

For either of these individuals, do their Hawaiian issued COLB’s state that their birthplace was Hawaii? Or do they list a foreign location?


113 posted on 09/05/2009 10:09:22 PM PDT by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
Both COLB’s list Hawaii as place of birth. However their ‘real’ birth certificates (long form) list hospitals in Osaka and Manila as places of birth.
114 posted on 09/05/2009 10:18:17 PM PDT by yadent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13

A question...

If it is argued that the State of Hawaii has not authenticated the COLB, doesn’t it follow that they have also not disavowed or otherwise questioned the validity of the published COLB?

I would expect that the State of Hawaii cannot ‘authenticate’ that specific document without physically inspecting that specific document. But if they had any reason to believe that the COLB is inauthentic, falsified or incorrect in any way, nothing would prevent them from saying so.


115 posted on 09/05/2009 10:21:05 PM PDT by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: yadent

I should add that neither individual has had any problems with citizenship as both sets of parents were US born citizens. They don’t know why their parents aquired Hawaiian COLB’s.


116 posted on 09/05/2009 10:30:52 PM PDT by yadent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: yadent

Well, would certainly be a game changer. A clear “smoking gun”, if you will.

Though in this case it appears that both parents were US citizens (a presumption on my part).

But, as James Randi says: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”.

Can you provide anything to substantiate or support your claim?

Seriously, If what you say is true, you have a moral imperative to do everything in your power to provide clear evidence that a person who is known to be born outside the United States, presumably to American parents, can indeed obtain a Hawaiian COLB listing a Hawaiian birth under Hawaii’s current vital records system.

That this is two separate individuals, would clearly demonstrate that this isn’t just a fluke administrative error.


117 posted on 09/05/2009 10:48:06 PM PDT by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
I would have to talk to the individuals first. I don't know how ‘involved’ they would want to get(both voted for the 0bama and still back him). I admit I'm going by their word, as I have NOT seen any of their certificates. However we all work for the State of California and have had EXTENSIVE background checks so anything fishy or illegal should have come up. They also would have no reason to lie to me. I understand though that obtaining an Hawaiian COLB was/is quite common if a parent/parents are residents of Hawaii at the time of their child's birth. One last point, their parents were involved with the same organization which may/may not matter.
118 posted on 09/05/2009 11:21:22 PM PDT by yadent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Rather quit than stand and fight?

Contrary to the ideals of an American officer who swore an oath to defend the constitution, no?


119 posted on 09/06/2009 5:30:37 AM PDT by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret) "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

See my previous couple of posts this same thread.

PM, imagine a weapons system. Let’s say it is a missile intercept system. Also imagine that they’ve left off the tail fin from every 3rd interceptor missile that they’ve sent you.

This is a problem. It could be a deadly problem.

Now, imagine a military combat unit as a carefully constructed and balanced weapons system. It actually is rated in terms of its combat power and combat effectiveness. It might have any number of components: infantry, armor, aviation, cooks, clerks, and DOCS.

Doctors are critical to the maintenance and reconstruction of one’s forces, and they are critical to the morale of the force.

If you pull one out, then you’ve effectively injured that weapons system in the same way as you injured that missile by removing a tail fin from every 3rd missile.

These military members of ours do not operate in a vacuum. Everyone is dependent on and connected to everyone else.

That is why this cannot be an acceptable definition of the freedom of individual troops. Their behavior cannot be designed to threaten the lives of others.

That is why I’m confident that this officer is not understanding the nature of orders received in an ongoing war.


120 posted on 09/06/2009 5:39:52 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior
Contrary to the ideals of an American officer who swore an oath to defend the constitution, no?

Not at all. Part of the oath I took said that I would well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I entered. Part of that duty is obeying the orders of my superiors. If I cannot in good conscience do that then I should feel obligated to resign.

121 posted on 09/06/2009 5:55:07 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Yeah, it is:

Nah, it is not.

The Captain is questioning, the legal qualification of Obama to be President. This is not mutiny, nor is it sedition. If the person in question is not legally qualified to hold the office, then all subsequent actions are illegal.

122 posted on 09/06/2009 5:57:22 AM PDT by rjsimmon (1-20-2013 The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: jude24
First of all, even assuming the underlying assumption of your argument, that is not true.

If you are assuming the underlying assumption, then you cannot claim it not true. The argument is whether or not Obama is legally qualified to hold the office of President. Until that is settled, then the Captain has every right to question his authority.

President Obama, even if he were technically unqualified, still holds apparent authority - and Congress, by seating him, has ratified his apparent authority with actual authority.

If the Congress abdicates its authority, then we have anarchy. Simply because Congress passes a law does not mean that the law is Constitutional.

That is first year Constitutional Law stuff.

123 posted on 09/06/2009 6:01:10 AM PDT by rjsimmon (1-20-2013 The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
The Captain is questioning, the legal qualification of Obama to be President. This is not mutiny, nor is it sedition. If the person in question is not legally qualified to hold the office, then all subsequent actions are illegal.

Yeah, it is. If she refuses to obey the orders of her superiors and induces others to refuse as well then it's mutiny. The military does not take kindly to junior officers and enlisted deciding what orders are valid and what are not. Ask Mike New and Ehren Watada how that works out.

124 posted on 09/06/2009 6:03:22 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: deport

The words in the Constitution are specific and not flexible. If a man fraudulently claims to be eligible in those words and fraudulently represents that a doucment proves that he meets that requirement when the document proves no such thing, why is that not actionable?


125 posted on 09/06/2009 6:35:09 AM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory

Can you show me the actionable process as enumerated and under what provisions it is to be carried out?


126 posted on 09/06/2009 6:41:38 AM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

I would tend to agree that an online copy is not sufficient to verify anything. I do think that there MAY be political pressure to NOT verify anything if possible. JMO


127 posted on 09/06/2009 9:30:35 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: xzins
What if the imposter sends your son to Honduras to overthrow the constitutional government and reinstate the wannabe dictator Zelaya as President for life?

Would you then perhaps think it would be OK for members of the military to question the authority of those orders?

Or as a member of the military is it incumbent upon you to obey orders, even if those orders are by nature illegal or unauthorized by the constitution?

128 posted on 09/06/2009 6:37:26 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

I would love to ask Capt Watada, seeings as the government dropped the charges against him and his courtmartial was in mistrail.

However, the case is distinctly different in that the war in Iraw was lawful. The question regarding the eligibility of the President is an entirely different matter.


129 posted on 09/06/2009 7:24:41 PM PDT by rjsimmon (1-20-2013 The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; jude24; Kolokotronis; jagusafr

A soldier is supposed to obey an unlawful order, but orders from your superiors are presumed to be lawful if they are customary to service. An order to be deployed to Afghan or Iraq, a war authorized by Congress, are presumed to be legal.

Those wars have gone far beyond the approval of this president and were in place on his assuming office. They were initiated by a former president, and they have joint resolutions of congress affirming them. Soldiers are to presume them legal, AND for the sake of those already there, they are not to leave them in the lurch in threat of their lives for the sake of what at this point is a personal philosphy or opinion. They are the relief, and if the relief does not arrive, it has injured the troops on the line.

This goes to the heart of what it means to be a comrade-at-arms. You don’t desert and leave your fellow troops out there. You just don’t.

Now, if this president decides on military action against Honduras, he will first have to make his case. It’s no where near that. I watched as both Grenada and Panama built up, and the Honduran situation isn’t anywhere near the point of deploying troops.

The manual for courts martial totally supports the refusal of orders that are patently illegal...such as orders to rape or pillage. As stated previously, orders that are customary to service are presumed to be legal, AND coming THROUGH the chain, they are coming from your immediate superiors (the officers appointed over you) who DO HAVE authority constitutionally to direct the actions of soldiers on the battlefield.

P-M, I have no regard for this female doc, because she has deserted troops in the field that she knows are dependent for their lives on her unique skills. And she has done it for what at this moment is her own personal philosphy or opinion.

You also know that I, too, want to see Obama’s original birth certificate. He has yet to show it. I’m interested in facts, and the fact is that he’s not produced any of his early documents.

This, however, does not change what is customary and necessary to military service relating to OUR young lives already on the battlefield.


130 posted on 09/07/2009 5:12:17 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
However, the case is distinctly different in that the war in Iraw was lawful. The question regarding the eligibility of the President is an entirely different matter.

Watada didn't believe that the war was lawful. In his opinion it was illegal and he believed that by agreeing to participate in it he was liable for being prosecuted for war crimes. So where is it really different? Watade believed the war was unlawful, Rhodes believes the commander-in-chief is illegitimate. In both cases you have officers taking it upon themselves what orders are to be obeyed and what are not. Why is it OK for one and not for the other?

131 posted on 09/07/2009 5:34:14 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; jude24; Kolokotronis; jagusafr
A soldier is supposed to obey an unlawful order

Correction: "A soldier is NOT supposed to obey an unlawful order...."

132 posted on 09/07/2009 5:41:50 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: deport

Well I could but I just will refer you to research the large amount of law on fraud. You may have heard that law suits are often filed because people engage in fraud. For example, to represent that a COLB is a “birth certificate” “proving” that one was born in Hawaii at the time (much less a “natural born citizen” is clearly a false representation. False representations in law are often found out to be fraudulent.


133 posted on 09/07/2009 6:24:12 AM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

It would seem the correctness of the opinion, should it be allowed to be determined, would make a difference. But that is clearly a question that you, like tho One whose interests you serve, do not want to have determined.


134 posted on 09/07/2009 6:27:54 AM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory
But that is clearly a question that you, like tho One whose interests you serve, do not want to have determined.

I think Captain Rhodes deserves her day in court, and if she refuses to report as ordered then she'll get it. Her civil suit will go nowhere.

135 posted on 09/07/2009 6:53:24 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
If an enemy dressed in a U.S. military uniform and then proceeded to order troops, would these orders be valid?

(By the way this did happen in WWII during the Battle of the Bulge.)

An honest, upright, straightforward person would be **HONORED** to prove that he was a natural born citizen of the United States.

Obama is behaving **irrationally**! It is an extremely inexpensive matter to prove natural born status, and he could do so with about $50 and the nod of his head. Yet...He now has the DOJ with government lawyers preventing this! ( Note the plural on lawyer”S”.) Our **tax dollars** are being used to prevent discovery on key documents. Tax dollars? UNBELIEVABLE!!!!

This is **not** normal behavior! Now that there is an Internet, this news can not be held back from the American people. I see one of two things happening:

1) The case will crack under the pressure of American disbelief and outrage, and Obama will be determined to be natural born or not by our highest courts.

2) The credibility of his presidency will be badly damaged and, along with it, the Democratic Party.

136 posted on 09/07/2009 6:54:57 AM PDT by wintertime (People are not stupid! Good ideas win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Now, if this president decides on military action against Honduras, he will first have to make his case. It’s no where near that. I watched as both Grenada and Panama built up, and the Honduran situation isn’t anywhere near the point of deploying troops.

He can order the troops into Honduras without the approval of anyone. IIRC he must get congressional approval for any military action lasting more than 90 days, but he does not need anyone's approval to order an "incursion" into Honduras to reinstate his pal Zelaya.

the Honduran situation isn’t anywhere near the point of deploying troops.

There's an election coming up. Obama clearly does not want that to happen because it will legitimize the ouster of Zelaya. If Zelaya is going to become dictator for life, he must be reinstated by November.

Now if Obama orders your son to Honduras to reinstate Zelaya, would you then maybe want to have Obama's credentials certified?

137 posted on 09/07/2009 7:33:48 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

My son, and all under arms, are sworn to defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

He swears to obey the orders of the officers appointed over him.

IF this president orders US troops to Honduras — which won’t happen, but, if it did — my son’s duty is to go to Honduras.

Until out of office, this president is the president, and no one has presented evidence that he is not the president. They have ONLY at this point presented evidence that he has not been forthcoming with a birth certificate. (And he hasn’t been.)

All of this hypothetical situationing doesn’t change the fact that those troops depend on each other for their lives, and anyone who takes into their own hands their deploying or not deploying also is responsible for deaths resulting from an undermanned military unit.

Missing deployment is being AWOL.


138 posted on 09/07/2009 7:42:36 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: xzins
IF this president orders US troops to Honduras — which won’t happen, but, if it did — my son’s duty is to go to Honduras.

Obama's loyalty is not to the United States of America. If he doesn't do something like invade Honduras, he's going to do something worse in the next 3 years. If I were in the service and I could find a way out before I was asked to fight on the side of Communism or some other totalitarian regime.

Look at Obama's closest friends. Van Jones, an admitted communist who worked to fight against the United States. Bill Ayers, a terrorist and his wife, Bernadette Dorn, another terrorist. Jeremiah Wright, a black supremacist and separatist who hates America. Obama BOWED to King Saud. Obama hugged and embraced Hugo Chavez, another fellow America hater. Look at his wife, Michelle who said she had NEVER been proud to be an American until her husband was nominated for the presidency. Look at his first speech as president, a speech apologizing to the Muslims who took down the twin towers for the evils of America. Look at his speech in Germany where he called out to "Fellow citizens of the World".

Now Obama is calling for the reinstatement of Manuel Zelaya, a man who by the provisions of the Honduran Constitution would be out of office in the next month and a half, yet he is calling for his reinstatement and refusing to recognize the legitimate constitutional government of Honduras that exiled him for crimes against the Constitutions. I do not trust Obama. The man is leading a country he hates. He is charged with upholding a Constitution that he hates and has no loyalty to. And he has to power to send our military anywhere in the world to do whatever the hell he wants without anyone's prior approval, and even if he needed the approval of congress to invade Honduras or Israel or any other friend of America, who is going to stop him?

It is true that our military should honor their commitment to the Afgan war, but then again, what if suddenly the mission turned to protecting the Taliban rather than killing them? Then what?

139 posted on 09/07/2009 11:42:28 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Given all the concerns you see on the horizon, and I agree with you, this is the time for the patriots in our military to STAY and not to go.

They are a sure line of our defense. The higher the percentage of patriots in the military, the more likely they will stand against any unlawful order were it to come.

And the 2d amendment.


140 posted on 09/07/2009 9:29:47 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

I agree if a private is required to report to duty and he doesn’t then he is insubordinate. However, you just validated my argument...the difference between a lawful and unlawful order.


141 posted on 09/09/2009 8:42:35 AM PDT by TXDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I agree that an order is presumed to be valid, but that only holds true if there is no evidence to the contrary. The whole point of these court actions are to validate those orders since there appears to be evidence to the contrary.

If you blindly follow an order when you have credible evidence indicating that the order is invalid for whatever reason then you can be guilty of a multitude of crimes. There appears to be credible evidence that Obama, thus his orders, are invalid. If true, then the service member has an obligation to question the order.

I agree that if an order is questioned solely because you disagree with the ideology of the person giving the order or with the order itself, then you are insubordinate. However, with the Obama eligibility issue, that does not appear to be the case. It is all about good faith and credible evidence, which is why this rightly needs to be sorted out in court.


142 posted on 09/09/2009 8:49:06 AM PDT by TXDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: TXDuke
I agree if a private is required to report to duty and he doesn’t then he is insubordinate. However, you just validated my argument...the difference between a lawful and unlawful order.

But again, Captain Rhodes has taken it upon herself to decide whether an order is lawful or not. The military does not take kindly to members who do that, and she can and should face a court martial if she refuses to report. Her position is no different than Michael New or Ehren Watada or any soldier or sailor who has been court martialed for refusing to report for duty in Iraq or Afganistan.

143 posted on 09/09/2009 9:05:33 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: TXDuke; P-Marlowe; jude24

The whole point of asking to see the birth certificate is that it has NOT been seen. Therefore, there is no evidence that Obama is NOT elibible. He is duly elected, sworn in, and holding office.

He signs things every day.

By custom of service, he is the Potus until he isn’t.


144 posted on 09/09/2009 9:17:53 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Please read my other posts. I agreed with you about following a lawful order. However, if credible evidence exists that leads a service member to believe that the order is not valid, then the service member has an obligation to speak up. That is what this court proceding is for. She (and others) believe they have credible evidence showing that the order to deploy is not valid, by proxy of the fact that the person giving the order is not valid. As such, the Cpt has a duty and right to question the order. If done so with credible evidence and in good faith, the the Cpt is not insubordinate. However, if the courts rules against her, then she had her day in court, and should deploy.


145 posted on 09/09/2009 11:16:29 AM PDT by TXDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Using your reasoning, those Germans in WWII who dressed as military officers ( Battle of the Bulge) were U.S. officers until proven until they weren't.

An honest, straightforward, and upright person occupying the White House would be **HONORED** to immediately prove they were a natural born citizen. What are we to think about the character of those defending Obama’s refusal to prove he is natural born?

146 posted on 09/09/2009 11:26:16 AM PDT by wintertime (People are not stupid! Good ideas win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Being “duly elected” or “sworn in” has little to do with the Constitution. We can elect Osama bin Laden if we want or Congress, with a majority in either party can swear in Putin if they want, but neither scenario would conform to our Constitution.

Besides, if he is not eligible, then he would never have been elected. He couldn’t have been elected. So basically, he would have deceived and committed fraud against the American people. That is a crime and military members are duty-bound to protect the U.S. against foreign and DOMESTIC enemies. Everything he has signed will be nullified.

Based on previous SCOTUS rulings and the facts about Obama’s birth and past (some even provided by Obama in his book), seem to indicate his ineligibility for POTUS. Clarification of his eligibility has been fought to extremes by Obama, rather than just proving his eligibility. Now further evidence of Obama’s education records, his possible Kenyan BC, and other records seem to indicate his ineligiblity.

Now I’m not a “birther” by any means, but I know people don’t spend as much money or time, as Obama has to hide his BC, for no reason at all. Either way, these people that must die on the front lines of “Obama’s war” have a right to have the evidence heard and evaluated.


147 posted on 09/09/2009 11:28:53 AM PDT by TXDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
she can and should face a court martial
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I bet’cha it would never get that far. Just like Major Cook some reason will be found for her not to deploy.

The discovery process of a court martial would likely lead to Obama being imprisoned, not the Captain.

148 posted on 09/09/2009 11:29:21 AM PDT by wintertime (People are not stupid! Good ideas win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

You mentioned those people that got into trouble for refusing an order, but you also have to keep in mind the Major (I don’t readily remember his name) who recently got his orders rescinded for questioning Obama’s eligibility. Obama instructed the DOJ and DOD not to fight the Major in court, which set a scary precedent.

Many service members now believe the Major called Obama’s bluff and believe that Obama will not court martial them if he is required to show his BC. Obama’s deceptive behavior only fuels the suspicion that he is not eligible.

Now with Obama not being firm on Iraq or Afghan and Obama not taking the advice of his military advisers, many military members believe we will lose the Afghan war and the Iraq war will experience horrible setbacks. As long as the dems have a Vietnam mentality and refuse to allow our military to win the war, then I can’t really blame the military people for being fearful of fighting a losing war with their hands tied behind their backs.


149 posted on 09/09/2009 12:01:31 PM PDT by TXDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: TXDuke
However, if credible evidence exists that leads a service member to believe that the order is not valid, then the service member has an obligation to speak up. That is what this court proceding is for.

I'm not denying her right to file the suit, though I question her choice of attorneys. But if she refuses to follow orders while waiting for this case of her's to work its way through the court then she deserves what's coming to her. Her restraining order was tossed. If she doesn't report as ordered then she's liable for the court martial. If she truly feels that the order is invalid then she should either resign or accept what the army decides to do to her.

150 posted on 09/09/2009 12:22:03 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-217 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