Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Halt! Who goes there? Identify yourself! - You're not my commander without proper documentation!

This news article reminds me of an apocryphal tale about General Curtis Lemay.

General Lemay was riding in the back seat of his command car, complete with the general’s stars on the little flags over the headlights and US Air Force markings. He ordered his driver to run the guard gate at SAC headquarters.

The sentry on duty quickly pulled his side arm and fired a shot at the fleeing command car. The shot shattered the rear window and the car screeched to a halt. General Lemay got out of the car and strode back to the sentry. General Lemay reached for the Sergeant’s stripes and ripped them off his sleeve. “That’s for missing!” said Lemay and went back to his car.

Notice to all civilians: If the military is ordered to shoot General’s for not providing proper ID imagine what they would do to Chicago con-men.

Now, somebody out there is going to use that story to conclude that I advocate violence against the President. Since the article did not mention the President I can only assume the "Chicago con-man" and "President" have become synonymous. The only use of violence I condone is self defense and defense of others. Under no circumstances do I see violence as a solution to the Chicago con-man problem. Not even in Chicago!

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

WorldNetDaily Exclusive
2nd U.S. soldier in Iraq challenges eligibility
Says issue could decide if 'we are a Constitutional Republic'

Posted: February 24, 2009
8:30 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh


Another U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq is joining a challenge to President Obama's eligibility to be commander-in-chief, citing WND's report on 1st Lt. Scott Easterling, who has agreed to be a plaintiff in a lawsuit over the issue, as his inspiration.

"I was inspired by 1LT Easterling's story and am writing you to inform you that I would like to be added as a plaintiff against Obama as well if you feel it would help your case," the soldier, identified for this report only as a reservist now on active duty in Iraq.

His letter was directed to California attorney Orly Taitz who, along with her Foundation, is working on a series of legal cases seeking to uncover Obama's birth records and other documents that would reveal whether he meets the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

Easterling, who confirmed separately to WND that he is questioning Obama's authority, wrote to Taitz that, "As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States."

(Story continues below)

The second soldier wrote, "I am an Army reservist who was activated last August and am currently serving with a military police battalion in Camp Bucca, Iraq. I will be here until at least June 2009."

He continued, "When I enlisted last year I had to show my birth certificate, as well as my driver's license, high school diploma, college transcripts, social security card; I also filled out loads of paperwork to include listing the names, addresses and phone numbers of my family members and had to answer any questions regarding foreign travel.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 270,000 others and sign up now!

"I think it is reasonable for Obama to prove his citizenship status thus certifying his eligibility. I too raised my right hand and swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States," he told Taitz. "I believe the case you are filing could very well determine if we are in fact a Constitutional Republic or a nation of mob rule. I would be honored to be a part of your efforts."

Perhaps anticipating a wave of outrage from Obama supporters, he asked that he be given no "unnecessary publicity," although his name eventually would become public when a case is filed.

Taitz told WND she was making contingency plans that could include her travel to Iraq should a military case be brought against the soldiers who are speaking their minds about Obama.

"I told him if there is any prosecution, he can get in touch with me. I would even fly to Iraq and work with the attorney there to provide his defense," she told WND.

She said undoubtedly a part of the defense would be a demand for documentation on Obama's actual qualifications to serve as U.S. president.

WND has reported on multiple legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." While representatives for Obama has called such claims "garbage," 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.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Several of the cases have involved emergency appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court in which justices have declined to hear arguments. According to a report from the Associated Press today, another such case has been rejected. The appeal by Cort Wrotnowski alleged Obama was a British subject at birth and, therefore, ineligible to be president.

There was no comment from the court, the same treatment the justices have given cases brought by several other lawyers, including Philip Berg, Leo Donofrio and Taitz.

WND reported yesterday when Easterling agreed to be a plaintiff in Taitz' case.

Soldier Scott Easterling

Taitz told WND she had advised Easterling to obtain legal counsel before making any statements regarding the commander-in-chief, but he insisted on moving forward. His contention is that as an active member of the U.S. military, he is required to follow orders from a sitting president, and he needs – on pain of court-martial – to know that Obama is eligible.

Taitz said other legal cases questioning Obama's eligibility filed by members of the military mostly have included retired officers, and courts several times have ruled they don't have standing to issue their challenge.

Easterling, however, is subject to enemy fire and certainly would have a reason to need to know the legitimacy of his orders, she argued.

"Until Mr. Obama releases a 'vault copy' of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office – an impostor," Easterling's statement said.


Anonymous said...

One officer and one grunt does not an army make. But I predict others will follow. A concern is that followers may be opportunists who changed their minds and now simply want a way out. Regardless, these folks have a greater claim to "standing" than any of us and the SCOTUS should cut the political crap and address the real threat. At the very least, these men are distracted at a very dangerous time of their lives. Tom2

oldone1942 said...

It is obvious that you are a coward and YOU have no standing to comment on this subject. You like Mr. Obama (not my President either; until he identifies himself)say the same thing I will not Identify myself and the reason is I have something to hide!
USMC '61-'66
Delbert W. Duncan
Louisville Ky.

Aristotle The Hun said...

Until you learn to read I guess you have no standing to make comments.

I am fully identified on this blog along with full contact information.

Please don't do anything more to reinforce the mistaken impression that marines are stupid.