Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Army Officer Appointment Acceptance and Oath of Office:This guy is a moron, you don't question you commander in chief : that is high treason.
We all know that the Army is no democracy, so please CUT THE CRAP
I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.
The US oath of military serivice for officers and enlisted is not an oath to support and defend the president, but the constitution, and that is exactly what this Lt. is attempting to do.
tossed out for comments:
A U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq has called President Obama an "impostor" in a statement in which he affirmed plans to join as plaintiff in a challenge to Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief.
Soldier doubts eligibility, defies president's orders
What's Obama's reasoning for refusing to provide this information?
Well all that aside, it's seriously happening, and he's not asking for something as trivial or unrelated to constitutional issues as his CO's B.C. I would just like to see a real disposition of the matter, not an abitrary one, but one based on the actual facts. Right now there are a huge number of legal challenges going forward, and it appears that they've gone nowhere because the've lacked legal "standing"Seriously, you know as well as I that that shit wouldn't work out to well if you tried that with your commanding general (Ask his birth certificate: he wouldn't have to show it to you either).
He is officially declared to be the president of the US by one of the highest judges in this country at the inauguration (how much more legal can you get?), even if he would be a foreigner (which is very very very very unlikely).
And what's all the fuss, if it's a certainty that this will all be proven to be nonsense?
It appears there may be a huge vulnerability here with this situation for the president.
No one said the president was or is a "foreigner". Introduction of the word foreigner prejudices otherwise substantitive issues. If he was born in Kenya, and if the law which was in effect at the time of that birth in 1961 applied to his citizenship, unless a later law was applied retroactively, he has a problem.The president has nothing to worry about, he doesn't have to give a shit about this guy. This guy is an embarresment for the army, the president doesn't have to prove anything.
If someone were to prove that he is a foreigner then you give me the evidence and Ill laugh my ass off, but until then: don't make a fool out of yourself ( there is 0 proof that he is a foreigner and there are many many many many more indications that he is legit )
No one said the president was or is a "foreigner". Introduction of the word foreigner prejudices otherwise substantitive issues. If he was born in Kenya, and if the law which was in effect at the time of that birth in 1961 applied to his citizenship, unless a later law was applied retroactively, he has a problem.The president has nothing to worry about, he doesn't have to give a shit about this guy. This guy is an embarresment for the army, the president doesn't have to prove anything.
If someone were to prove that he is a foreigner then you give me the evidence and Ill laugh my ass off, but until then: don't make a fool out of yourself ( there is 0 proof that he is a foreigner and there are many many many many more indications that he is legit )
US CODE: Title 8,1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
If this was President Bush would we or should we feel differently?
A record of live birth but not an acual birth certificate.
Not according to the supreme court.
What to some seems trivially obvious requires nominal proof for others; otherwise it appears no rules as they are understood need apply to our governing class in every case. This breeds a growing cynicism.Yay him! woooo hoooo... he sure showed 'em!
I think Easterling is smart as a fox. I don't believe he really has any doubts about President Obama's legitimacy as the Commander in Chief. Instead, this could be a ploy to get out of Iraq by doing something so monumentally embarrassing to the US Army that it has no choice but to pull him out of Iraq, charge him under the UCMJ but give him a Other Than Honorable Discharge which doesn't really count against him in the civilian world.
I could be wrong. After all, we are talking about a second lieutenant!
From the text in the link:
"Easterling said he joined the Army at age 40 after working in Iraq as a contractor."
"I chose to work to support my troops and then left that lucrative position when the Army raised its maximum enlistment age to 40. Upon completion of basic training, I entered Officer Candidate School and commissioned as a 2LT in August 2007. After completing the subsequent basic officer leadership courses, I was assigned to Ft. Knox and shortly thereafter deployed to Balad, Iraq," he wrote.
"I implore all service-members and citizens to contact their senators and representatives and demand that they require Mr. Obama prove his eligibility. Our Constitution and our great nation must not be allowed to be disgraced," he wrote.
.... Easterling is among the plaintiffs she is assembling for a new legal action over Obama's eligibility. Others include a list of state lawmakers who also would be required in their official position to follow orders of the president.
"My conviction is such that I am compelled to join.... as a plaintiff, against Mr. Obama. As a citizen, it pains me to do this, but as an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this action," he said.
I do not doubt his sincerity. He took an oath (like all service members do) "to protect and defend the constitution". The fact is he, along with some others in that above list would be required in their official position to follow orders of the president, and have the necessary "standing" to challenge the President's lack of being forthright with his documents. Anyone who brings a case to the Supreme Court of the US must have that status of "standing" and that may have been the reason that up to now the Supreme Court has not taken up any of these cases. Attorney Berg has been ruled to not have "standing"...
STANDING
Judge dismisses Obama birth certificate lawsuit - Oct 25, 2008 ... Rules voters don't have standing to 'police' constitutional ... "Until that time," Surrick says, "voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff ...
I for one am interested in seeing how this pans out. And I hope that Obama's certificate of live birth in Hawaii proves to actually be a birth certificate. If it is proven that there has been a dereliction of duty by government officials of the US to ascertain the citizenship of a candidate for president, then a great deal of damage has already been done to the confidence in our system to be able to police itself. Sadly, we already know the answer to that question, and for good or bad some are determined to discover the truth in this matter rather than just brush it under the rug.
And if in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books in the United States at the time of his birth stated:
if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen, which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother would have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14) (which would equal 19). At the time of Obama's birth, his mother was only eighteen (18) and therefore did not meet the residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship . (numbers in parenthesis are mine)
he could easily be found in violation of article 88 of 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.
articles 92 and/or 94 is a stretch, IMO, but could be used.
Main Menu
Shouldn't that be former soldier? What an idiot. I am glad he spoke up...people like him are a disgrace to the country and shouldn't be in the service.
And what's all the fuss, if it's a certainty that this will all be proven to be nonsense?
It appears there may be a huge vulnerability here with this situation for the president.
The president has nothing to worry about, he doesn't have to give a shit about this guy. This guy is an embarresment for the army, the president doesn't have to prove anything.
If someone were to prove that he is a foreigner then you give me the evidence and I ll laugh my ass off, but until then: don't make a fool out of yourself ( there is 0 proof that he is a foreigner and there are many many many many more indications that he is legit )
No one said the president was or is a "foreigner". Introduction of the word foreigner prejudices otherwise substantitive issues. If he was born in Kenya, and if the law which was in effect at the time of that birth in 1961 applied to his citizenship, unless a later law was applied retroactively, he has a problem.The president has nothing to worry about, he doesn't have to give a shit about this guy. This guy is an embarresment for the army, the president doesn't have to prove anything.
If someone were to prove that he is a foreigner then you give me the evidence and Ill laugh my ass off, but until then: don't make a fool out of yourself ( there is 0 proof that he is a foreigner and there are many many many many more indications that he is legit )
US CODE: Title 8,1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
If this was President Bush would we or should we feel differently?
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
This is what I don't like about you...you assume you know what everyone thinks. Someone in the military doesn't question the authority of the president in public. Someone not in the military is free to do so. The guy in the story isn't the only putz here, you've just joined him.Shouldn't that be former soldier? What an idiot. I am glad he spoke up...people like him are a disgrace to the country and shouldn't be in the service.
Ya but you just ate it up when Generals talked bad about Bush didn't you?
So he's a coward, basically. Big surprise.This guy will get discharged because he broke the UCMJ more than likely under Article 88-Contempt toward officials. He should have waited until he got out of the Military. As a Civilain I see no problem but he signed a contract with the Military and must follow the law of the UCMJ.
I think Easterling is smart as a fox. I don't believe he really has any doubts about President Obama's legitimacy as the Commander in Chief. Instead, this could be a ploy to get out of Iraq by doing something so monumentally embarrassing to the US Army that it has no choice but to pull him out of Iraq, charge him under the UCMJ but give him a Other Than Honorable Discharge which doesn't really count against him in the civilian world.
I could be wrong. After all, we are talking about a second lieutenant!
And what's all the fuss, if it's a certainty that this will all be proven to be nonsense?
It appears there may be a huge vulnerability here with this situation for the president.
The president has nothing to worry about, he doesn't have to give a shit about this guy. This guy is an embarresment for the army, the president doesn't have to prove anything.
If someone were to prove that he is a foreigner then you give me the evidence and I ll laugh my ass off, but until then: don't make a fool out of yourself ( there is 0 proof that he is a foreigner and there are many many many many more indications that he is legit )
I bet you are another one that applauded all the deserters that claimed Bush gave them "illegal" orders and I bet you loved it when Generals spoke up against Bush. No talk of treason then, I bet.
So he's a coward, basically. Big surprise.This guy will get discharged because he broke the UCMJ more than likely under Article 88-Contempt toward officials. He should have waited until he got out of the Military. As a Civilain I see no problem but he signed a contract with the Military and must follow the law of the UCMJ.
I think Easterling is smart as a fox. I don't believe he really has any doubts about President Obama's legitimacy as the Commander in Chief. Instead, this could be a ploy to get out of Iraq by doing something so monumentally embarrassing to the US Army that it has no choice but to pull him out of Iraq, charge him under the UCMJ but give him a Other Than Honorable Discharge which doesn't really count against him in the civilian world.
I could be wrong. After all, we are talking about a second lieutenant!
