Author Topic: U.S. officer demands answer: Is Army 'corps of chattel slaves?' (Read 18508 times)

Bluesuiter-Retired · « **Reply #25 on:** July 12, 2009, 09:46:57 PM »

Remember this part of the oath you took - to support and defend the constitution.....?

Evidently the major feels very strongly that he is doing just that. He doesn't believe that OH-BUMMER has the constitutional authority to issue orders since the question of his eligibility to be the POTUS is STILL in question.

OH-BUMMER can very easily resolve the matter and produce his birth certificate.

If all he has is a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH issued by a U.S. consulate, then he IS NOT a natural born citizen and is therefore INELIGIBLE to be the POTUS. Watch and see how quickly the OH-BUMMER worshippers will push for a ONE-TIME exemption to allow him to remain the POTUS.

Hell, there is already a move afoot to revoke the Constitutional Amendment which limits the POTUS to two-terms in office so that OH-BUMMER can become PRESIDENT FOR LIFE.

Rebel · « **Reply #26 on:** July 12, 2009, 09:58:18 PM »

Yeah, remember the "and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States"? Whether we like it or not, the idiot is the POTUS and if the Major has a problem with it, he needs to take it up through the channels. This is not a fight he can win.

AllosaursRus · « **Reply #27 on:** July 12, 2009, 10:01:15 PM »

Quote from: Rebel on July 12, 2009, 09:58:18 PM

Yeah, remember the "and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States"? Whether we like it or not, the idiot is the POTUS and if the Major has a problem with it, he needs to take it up through the channels. This is not a fight he can win.

Unfortunately you're right! What I find hard to swallow is his peers not taking the same tact. All the way up the chain of command.

djones520 · « **Reply #28 on:** July 12, 2009, 10:03:38 PM »

Quote from: Rebel on July 12, 2009, 09:58:18 PM

Yeah, remember the "and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States"? Whether we like it or not, the idiot is the POTUS and if the Major has a problem with it, he needs to take it up through the channels. This is not a fight he can win.

While I shudder at the thought of "defending" a post of Blue-Suiters, as far as I'm aware the oath that Officers take (especially in the Army), the POTUS is never mentioned.

Quote

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm

Rebel · « **Reply #29 on:** July 12, 2009, 10:13:28 PM »

Hmm, Interesting.

I still don't think he can win this battle. From reading it looks like when I go back in, and hopefully make CW2, I'll be taking the same oath.

DumbAss Tanker · « **Reply #30 on:** July 12, 2009, 10:18:12 PM »

Officers and enlisted don't take quite the same oath, it's true. Thing is, once the Chief Justice swears him in, he is presumptively the President and it's not up some random doofus to challenge any order he gives, as long as it isn't unlawful on its face.

Rebel · « **Reply #31 on:** July 12, 2009, 10:32:30 PM »

Let's see how the DUmbasses react to this, since they were the ones calling for enlisted personnel to desert and officers to be shot. I don't guess I have to make any predictions that are probably not known on this site.

docstew · « **Reply #32 on:** July 13, 2009, 03:49:55 AM »

Quote from: Bluesuiter-Retired on July 12, 2009, 09:46:57 PM

Remember this part of the oath you took - to support and defend the constitution.....?

Evidently the major feels very strongly that he is doing just that. He doesn't believe that OH-BUMMER has the constitutional authority to issue orders since the question of his eligibility to be the POTUS is STILL in question.

OH-BUMMER can very easily resolve the matter and produce his birth certificate.

If all he has is a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH issued by a U.S. consulate, then he IS NOT a natural born citizen and is therefore INELIGIBLE to be the POTUS. Watch and see how quickly the OH-BUMMER worshippers will push for a ONE-TIME exemption to allow him to remain the POTUS.
Hell, there is already a move afoot to revoke the Constitutional Amendment which limits the POTUS to two-terms in office so that OH-BUMMER can become PRESIDENT FOR LIFE.

Hell, I would support that, as long as it was part of a law requiring the FEC to verify Constitutional eligibility for any person running for a national office (i.e. Rep, Senator, POTUS). I don't see how they could boot him now, as it would be ex post facto, but it would bar him from running for re-election. Of course, as soon as he becomes a lame duck, expect the massive swing leftward.

5412 · « **Reply #33 on:** July 13, 2009, 05:10:49 AM »

Quote from: DumbAss Tanker on July 12, 2009, 05:21:44 PM

As far as I'm concerned he's abandoning his sacred oath and his comrades headed for war over an unproven possibility. That's unacceptable.

Hi Guys,

I am not so sure that he does not have some merit. Here is why. Recall the Vietnam era where officers were told to lie about body counts, napalm civilians, etc. and many officers were in a heep of trouble because they followed orders and did just that. If you do not believe me, ask Ollie North. If any officer, or NCO for that matter, can be prosecuted for following orders, then should that officer have some sort of recourse to challenge the validity of the order beforehand?????

Just a thought,

5412

DumbAss Tanker · « **Reply #34 on:** July 13, 2009, 08:39:16 AM »

Quote from: 5412 on July 13, 2009, 05:10:49 AM

Hi Guys,

I am not so sure that he does not have some merit. Here is why. Recall the Vietnam era where officers were told to lie about body counts, napalm civilians, etc. and many officers were in a heep of trouble because they followed orders and did just that. If you do not believe me, ask Ollie North. If any officer, or NCO for that matter, can be prosecuted for following orders, then should that officer have some sort of recourse to challenge the validity of the order beforehand?????

Just a thought,

5412

There is no comparison whatsoever, and I'm somewhat surprised that you would try to put forward such an obviously defective analysis. What you are talking about is exactly what amounts to 'Facially invalid' or illegal/unlawful orders, it has exactly Jack Shit to do with the qualifications to hold office of the person issuing them. In fact, in all of the examples you use, the people who issued those orders didn't have the slightest shadow of a doubt cast on their official qualifications to issue orders, the whole point was the substance of the orders that were issued.

And Hell no, it would be an unbelievably stupid idea to allow a Soldier to challenge a company commander's order just because he thought the commander had cheated on tests in college and therefore ultimately lied his way to being commissioned, or he heard a rumor the commander had tried drugs in high school but lied about it on his security clearance application and wouldn't have been able to be commissioned if he told the truth, which is exactly where your "Shouldn't he be able to..." would end up in no time flat.

docstew · « **Reply #35 on:** July 13, 2009, 09:35:50 AM »

The way I see it, there is a slim to none chance of 0bama being removed from office, even if it is shown that he was born in Kenya. The reality is, the SCOTUS has so far refused to hear any of these cases, and Roberts effectively endorsed the election results on 20 Jan 09.

0bama is POTUS, like it or not, and for the next 3.5 years (God help us all). The thing to focus on is removing his Congressional help in 2010, and removing him in 2012. There may be some who will be swayed by the "0bama's not even qualified because he was born in Kenya" routine, but most people will look at you the same way we look at troofers, with pity and worry that you aren't in a long sleeved jacket that buckles in the back. The way to hit him hardest, especially when tax increases come, is by reminding everyone that he swore "not one single dime" more in taxes. (Come to think of it, he's right, it won't be one SINGLE dime, it'll be hundreds and thousands of them)

Bluesuiter-Retired · « **Reply #36 on:** July 13, 2009, 09:51:38 AM »

One way for officers to protest, when they feel so strongly about not wanting to serve under an POTUS whom is an IDIOT, is to resign their commission.

It happened in big numbers under clinton.

How many career NCOs whom had 20-years in submitted their retirement paperwork when clinton took office?

Rebel · « **Reply #37 on:** July 13, 2009, 10:01:43 AM »

Quote from: Bluesuiter-Retired on July 13, 2009, 09:51:38 AM

One way for officers to protest, when they feel so strongly about not wanting to serve under an POTUS whom is an IDIOT, is to resign their commission.

It happened in big numbers under clinton.

Actually, they were paid for an early out. My neighbor got out as a Major and is still drawing money and will be for the next 10 years.

Thor · « **Reply #38 on:** July 13, 2009, 10:27:20 AM »

I'll have to side with the dissenting Major. How can the Major be obligated to follow orders of an "illegal" President?? Since there is a question about his birthplace, it COULD be justified to ask the President to bring forth his actual birth certificate to prove his legality. Once that's done, and depending on the outcome, that would become the deciding factor on whether or not the major complies. Should 0bama be proven to be a legitimate President, from that time on, most all of his orders should be "legal" (unless they violate the Constitution or UCMJ).
What my problem is, I suppose, is the fact that 0bama seems to be hiding something. His minions are busy scrubbing the internet of any and all documents. ( http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html )

Also, troops have fired upon civilians since the Bonus Army. Anybody remember Kent State?? Didn't seven civilians die there??

dutch508 · « **Reply #39 on:** July 13, 2009, 10:54:03 AM »

Quote from: Thor on July 13, 2009, 10:27:20 AM

Also, troops have fired upon civilians since the Bonus Army. Anybody remember Kent State?? Didn't seven civilians die there??

Kent state was a national guard unit under the Governor's orders- not federal.

Also, there was no order from higher to fire on the students.

Rebel · « **Reply #40 on:** July 13, 2009, 10:54:29 AM »

Quote from: Thor on July 13, 2009, 10:27:20 AM

I'll have to side with the dissenting Major. How can the Major be obligated to follow orders of an "illegal" President??

Because it's not his decision or charge to make. Right now, he is the legally-sat President of the United States.

Eupher · « **Reply #41 on:** July 13, 2009, 11:03:28 AM »

Quote from: Rebel on July 13, 2009, 10:54:29 AM

Because it's not his decision or charge to make. Right now, he is the legally-sat President of the United States.

Concur. Military personnel who resort to this kind of activity are attention whores, imho. This guy is spoiling for an angle of some type, though that angle might include some vertical and parallel steel bars intended to incarcerate people.

Also concur with docstew. SCOTUS completely dropped the ball on this one, and Roberts implicitly declared the election valid when he administered the Oath of Office - twice, because both participants hosed it up the first time.

I saw this as a wasted opportunity to rid the country of a

.

Chris_ · « **Reply #42 on:** July 13, 2009, 11:58:51 AM »

Quote from: AllosaursRus on July 12, 2009, 06:27:50 PM

I agree with you TxR about him being in the service and having taken the oath. However, when will the American people actually get an answer to this question? As long as it stays in the limelight it puts pressure, however slight, on the Messiah to answer. Personally I can't fathom why in the world he keeps ducking. It begins to look like he must have something to hide.

The longer he refuses the more I believe he is not a natural born citizen!

Do Hawaiian Birth Certificates list the race of the child? In many if not all states, the race of the child in mixed race births is listed to match that of the mother.

thundley4 · « **Reply #43 on:** July 13, 2009, 12:54:26 PM »

Quote from: lug-nut on July 13, 2009, 11:58:51 AM

Do Hawaiian Birth Certificates list the race of the child? In many if not all states, the race of the child in mixed race births is listed to match that of the mother.

You mean that not only is he NOT the first black president, but he may just be another "crackuh" in the White House?

Rebel · « **Reply #44 on:** July 13, 2009, 01:04:46 PM »

Well, on that fakeass birth certificate that the libs are circulating, his father has "African" listed as his race. Last I checked, "African" isn't a race. Is my race "American"? No, it's Caucasian.

vesta111 · « **Reply #45 on:** July 13, 2009, 02:05:03 PM »

Quote from: docstew on July 13, 2009, 09:35:50 AM

The way I see it, there is a slim to none chance of 0bama being removed from office, even if it is shown that he was born in Kenya. The reality is, the SCOTUS has so far refused to hear any of these cases, and Roberts effectively endorsed the election results on 20 Jan 09.

0bama is POTUS, like it or not, and for the next 3.5 years (God help us all). The thing to focus on is removing his Congressional help in 2010, and removing him in 2012. There may be some who will be swayed by the "0bama's not even qualified because he was born in Kenya" routine, but most people will look at you the same way we look at troofers, with pity and worry that you aren't in a long sleeved jacket that buckles in the back. The way to hit him hardest, especially when tax increases come, is by reminding everyone that he swore "not one single dime" more in taxes. (Come to think of it, he's right, it won't be one SINGLE dime, it'll be hundreds and thousands of them)

Carefull there Doc, I seem to remember Daddy Bush becoming most forcfull when repeating over and over again "Read my lips, no new taxes."

Now about this Army Officer and his problem with obaying orders passed down to him by his Superior Officer. Surely the President is not involved with personally issuing orders to each and every lowly Major in the Army.

Just who the heck does this Officer think he is, this dude is going to have a hard time in civilian life if he refuses to obay his supervison at work untill he is shown proof that the CEO of the company can prove they hold the position due to legal means and has the RIGHT to run that company.

Yaqh-yah- he is not conserned with HIS safty as much as he is with the men and woman who are building roads and bridges to make it easier for the civilians to get to market and the hospital, or to schools for the kids.

Some how the idea that he has been offered one heck of a well paying job in the civilian sector, from a compaqny that will not keep the position open for long, comes to mind. He needs an excuse to dump his commision and get out with the reputation of being, not a coward but a man with the highest of principels.

If he were sincere he would have just quietly resigned, however he has chosen to go public with what would be called Treasonist comments about the very man who he swore an oath to defend and obay.

Just what we need at this time is for Military Officers of like mind to form cells that undermine our government.

Nasty piece of work there, He was not drafted, he knew full well and has known for a few years that the Millitary cannot be run by everyone that disagrees with the rules.

TheSarge · « **Reply #46 on:** July 13, 2009, 02:09:51 PM »

Quote

Just what we need at this time is for Military Officers of like mind to form cells that undermine our government.

Way to broadbrush there.

Guess you support the feds catagorizing sildiers and vets as "terrorists"

NHSparky · « **Reply #47 on:** July 13, 2009, 02:12:18 PM »

Tx, it's vesta--need I say more?

TheSarge · « **Reply #48 on:** July 13, 2009, 02:14:25 PM »

Quote from: NHSparky on July 13, 2009, 02:12:18 PM

Tx, it's vesta--need I say more?

Except here she'll actually have to defend her left wing BS and not just have it taken at face value.

5412 · « **Reply #49 on:** July 13, 2009, 02:14:55 PM »

Quote from: DumbAss Tanker on July 13, 2009, 08:39:16 AM

There is no comparison whatsoever, and I'm somewhat surprised that you would try to put forward such an obviously defective analysis. What you are talking about is exactly what amounts to 'Facially invalid' or illegal/unlawful orders, it has exactly Jack Shit to do with the qualifications to hold office of the person issuing them. In fact, in all of the examples you use, the people who issued those orders didn't have the slightest shadow of a doubt cast on their official qualifications to issue orders, the whole point was the substance of the orders that were issued.

And Hell no, it would be an unbelievably stupid idea to allow a Soldier to challenge a company commander's order just because he thought the commander had cheated on tests in college and therefore ultimately lied his way to being commissioned, or he heard a rumor the commander had tried drugs in high school but lied about it on his security clearance application and wouldn't have been able to be commissioned if he told the truth, which is exactly where your "Shouldn't he be able to..." would end up in no time flat.

Hi,

I appreciate the point but do not feel the need for you to put me down. Quite the contrary, an order to go to war from a person who is not qualified to give the order, and quite possibly a muslim and all the other things outlined in his lawsuit would appear to have some merit. Were it some insignificat order that might be something different, but to send a person into a war zone to me is what makes it legitimate.

5412

News:

Author Topic: U.S. officer demands answer: Is Army 'corps of chattel slaves?' (Read 18508 times)