Soldier doubts eligibility, defies president's orders

veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rslinger
http:///forum/post/2969536
i did read it all the way. and i got to the end and i said how can people come up with some of this crap. how i feel a about the soldiers i am not sure in one hand you signed up to be in military so you should fullfill your word to your country. in the other hand should you be forced to fight a war you dont believe in. i dont know this thread didnt help me answer that question for myself. i think we just need to hurry up get out of there and stop blowing money there i guess.
The soldiers in question arent questioning the war they are fighting .It is true that they voluntarily signed into the military under the belief the Commander in Chief is truly the Commander in Chief,they have doubts on this since the election and now want undeniable proof.I dont think that is to much to ask for considering that they are in harms way and their putting life and limb on the line fighting to support and defend the US Constitution. This has nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh,Shawn Hannity,or Repulicans.........
It has everything to do with standing up for what they believe in and upholding their oath to support and defend the US Constitution.Including the part in question (Article II Section 1)
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2969440
How in the hell did the 2nd Amendment get into this debate?
My argument is based on that Article II Section 1 of the US Constitution CLEARLY states the qualification to be POTUS,and that there are now two active duty soldiers who doubt his eligibility to be POTUS. In addition there are thousand of American citizens who also have doubts, some of which happen to be ex military and current politicians,some of which are democrats.
The US Constitution, the framework of our country that sets the standard on which our laws are written are non negotiable they are the laws of the land set forth by our forefathers.Unless Article II Section 1 is amended it states clearly that:
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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Period...End of Story.... If you still dont realize this with all the evidence and writing provided then this discussion is for not.You cant or wont see the facts and undeniably of the writing of the US Constitution.
You don't have to paste the SAME statement in every one of your posts. I can read. The problem you have with your last response is you used the word CLEARLY. As I have asked NUMEROUS TIMES, show me in the Constitution where it CLEARLY defines what the term Natural Born Citizen means. You can't. Period. End of story. And Article II Section 1 CLEARLY states that a CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES is also eligible to run for President. Like I said, look at the punctuation. You keep disputing it, but it depends on how you interpret the meaning of that line.
I just can't understand why you're so adamant about what is essentially a non-issue. I honestly can't believe you actually think Obama isn't an actual citizen of the US, after serving in the Senate, and now the Presidency. You want him to show some physical proof of his birth certificate, yet that has already been done and validated by Hawaiian authorities. You and the other conspriacy theorist don't want to believe it because the document doesn't look valid. How do you know? Do you have a RECENT Hawaii birth certificate? You do understand that an offical copy today may not look like the original? The recent copy I obtained of my birth certificate looks NOTHING like my original. However, it's legal and valid just the same. So GET OVER IT.
 
hydrodamoper

hydrodamoper

Member

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2967386
I found this story to be interesting and thought i would share.

"As an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this"
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89837

Career suicide at it's best
.
Both of these soldiers need to quit belly-aching and get the job done they were sent over there for. Let the courts sort out things they have no control over. I can only imagine the effects this kind of "publicity stunt" is doing to either of these soldiers' unit.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2969778
You don't have to paste the SAME statement in every one of your posts. I can read. The problem you have with your last response is you used the word CLEARLY. As I have asked NUMEROUS TIMES, show me in the Constitution where it CLEARLY defines what the term Natural Born Citizen means. You can't. Period. End of story. And Article II Section 1 CLEARLY states that a CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES is also eligible to run for President. Like I said, look at the punctuation. You keep disputing it, but it depends on how you interpret the meaning of that line.
If a foreign born naturalized citizen was born in another nation ,then a natural born citizen would be born on the soil of his country? ArticlII Section 1 says "at the time of the adoption of this Constitution," Because most of them where from foreign countrys at the time of the birth of the USA.Hence this is a Grandfather Clause to separate themselves form future generations.This was and is to prevent Dual allegiances,or allegences that would be dangerous to our country.
Originally Posted by bionicarm[/b]
http:///forum/post/2969778
I just can't understand why you're so adamant about what is essentially a non-issue. I honestly can't believe you actually think Obama isn't an actual citizen of the US, after serving in the Senate, and now the Presidency. You want him to show some physical proof of his birth certificate, yet that has already been done and validated by Hawaiian authorities. You and the other conspriacy theorist don't want to believe it because the document doesn't look valid. How do you know? Do you have a RECENT Hawaii birth certificate? You do understand that an offical copy today may not look like the original? The recent copy I obtained of my birth certificate looks NOTHING like my original. However, it's legal and valid just the same. So GET OVER IT.
Senators ,Congressmen Governors..... are not bound by this section of the US Constitution only the POTUS is.I didnt say he want a citizen,I have said i have doubt.Its my right and the right of the soldiers as well as any American citizen.It isnt that hard to provide Vault documentation to prove his status,but he wont do it.So therefore you will have conspiracy theory and doubters.
The Constitution made this provision in the Constitution for a reason ,Apparently one you don't find convenient because it may harm "Dear Leader". Hey let just change the whole friggin US Constitution or Just throw it away.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2969784
If a foreign born naturalized citizen was born in another nation ,then a natural born citizen would be born on the soil of his country? ArticlII Section 1 says "at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,"[/B] Because most of them where from foreign countrys at the time of the birth of the USA.Hence this is a Grandfather Clause to separate themselves form future generations.This was and is to prevent Dual allegiances,or allegences that would be dangerous to our country.
Senators ,Congressmen Governors..... are not bound by this section of the US Constitution only the POTUS is.I didnt say he want a citizen,I have said i have doubt.Its my right and the right of the soldiers as well as any American citizen.It isnt that hard to provide Vault documentation to prove his status,but he wont do it.So therefore you will have conspiracy theory and doubters.
The Constitution made this provision in the Constitution for a reason ,Apparently one you don't find convenient because it may harm "Dear Leader". Hey let just change the whole friggin US Constitution or Just throw it away.

The question is why do you doubt it when Hawaii authorities have validated he was born there? I could care less whether it harms "Dear Leader" or not. His representatives have clearly provided evidence of his birthplace, and every legal institution of our Federal Govt. agrees and approves of the proof shown. You want some 'vault document' to quell your suspicions. Why? Even if they brought that out, the dissenters would disprove that document. "Some Hawaiian authority had that made up. Obama's henchman got to them." If they produced a birth certificate with parent and doctor signatures, are you going to want some handwriting expert go out and prove those are the actual signatures of his parents and the doctor who deliverd him? See where this is going? No matter what documents he produces, someone still isn't going to believe it.
If this ridiculous story stays alive in the media, I imagine you'll have some person who used to work at the Hawaii hospital he was born in come out of the woodwork and claim they either did or didn't see or admit Obama's mother.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2969013
The problem with your logic is the 'terrorists' you feel we should fight over there, aren't the one's we need to worry about. It's the one's that HAVE already infiltrated our borders that are hanging around waiting for the next orders are the one's you should be concerned with. You want to fight the 'Global War On Terror'? At least do it where it counts. Al-Qaeda operatives may have been in Iraq at some point in time, but the one's we should be concerned with have been sitting in Afghanistan or Pakistan even before we went in and took out Sadaam. Our troops have been fighting Shiites, Kurds, or whichever the one's that hate us over there. What to they have to do with terroristic attacks against the US? They just want their ideologies they believe in back, and don't want to follow the doctrines the US has helped implement after Sadaam was killed. I doubt any of those factions, regimes, tribes, whichever term you want to use, would even attempt to retaliate against us on our own soil. They're too busy trying to protect or get what was once theirs back.
Again I'll say it...
The military has killed thousands of Al Qaeda in Iraq.... they weren't here in 03, but we didn't come here in 03 to get Al Qaeda. The point is, Al Qaeda came here to fight, instead of going to New York.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Hydrodamoper
http:///forum/post/2969781
Career suicide at it's best
.
Both of these soldiers need to quit belly-aching and get the job done they were sent over there for. Let the courts sort out things they have no control over. I can only imagine the effects this kind of "publicity stunt" is doing to either of these soldiers' unit.
Considering less than 25% of the military voted for President Obama I'd guess more than a few support the actions of these soldiers.
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2970094
Considering less than 25% of the military voted for President Obama I'd guess more than a few support the actions of these soldiers.
So b/c 75% of them didn't vote for him, its ok to not follow orders?
 
hydrodamoper

hydrodamoper

Member

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2970094
Considering less than 25% of the military voted for President Obama I'd guess more than a few support the actions of these soldiers.
I never said that these 2 soldiers do not have support from their fellow soldiers. There is a difference between agreement and support. I'm willing to bet that less than 25% of the chain of command supports their actions, while 75% of their chain of command may agree with them.
I said the soldiers in THEIR units probably do not need the distractions caused by their "personal cause". It might be a better idea to wait until they come out of a combat zone and deal with their concerns.
BTW - I'm sure Lt Easterling isn't having a problem recieving a monthy paycheck and hazardous duty pay from his newly appointed Command-in-Chief.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member

Originally Posted by Hydrodamoper
http:///forum/post/2970149
I never said that these 2 soldiers do not have support from their fellow soldiers. There is a difference between agreement and support. I'm willing to bet that less than 25% of the chain of command supports their actions, while 75% of their chain of command may agree with them.
I said the soldiers in THEIR units probably do not need the distractions caused by their "personal cause". It might be a better idea to wait until they come out of a combat zone and deal with their concerns.
BTW - I'm sure Lt Easterling isn't having a problem recieving a monthy paycheck and hazardous duty pay from his newly appointed Command-in-Chief.

The whos and how manys are irrelevant,its the principals they stand on.They took a oath and intend on staying true to it.Weather they are right or wrong is irrelevant as well, they have a right and are obligated to know if the Commander in Chief is legitimate.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Hydrodamoper
http:///forum/post/2970149
...
I said the soldiers in THEIR units probably do not need the distractions caused by their "personal cause". It might be a better idea to wait until they come out of a combat zone and deal with their concerns....
You did not say that. You said:
Originally Posted by Hydrodamoper
http:///forum/post/2969781
.... I can only imagine the effects this kind of "publicity stunt" is doing to either of these soldiers' unit.
 
hydrodamoper

hydrodamoper

Member

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2970154
The whos and how manys are irrelevant,its the principals they stand on.They took a oath and intend on staying true to it.Weather they are right or wrong is irrelevant as well, they have a right and are obligated to know if the Commander in Chief is legitimate.
Once again.....I am NOT saying they do not have the right or obligation to question anything they want. I am just stating that it probably not the best time or place to question the legitimacy of their Commander-in-Chief (while in a combat zone). The last thing anyone needs is to wonder if the soldier next to him or her is debating if they should follow the orders of their commanders.
Lt Easterling, in particular, is my main issue. Being a leader in the military and questioning the legitamacy of your leaders gives any soldier under his command the right to question his orders based on their concerns. What if one of his soldiers thought that Lt Easterling's enlistment documents were fake, does that mean they could drop their weapons and go back inside the "green zone" until they see his enlistment contract?
 
hydrodamoper

hydrodamoper

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2970181
You did not say that. You said:
Quit nitpicking phrases. I was saying the same basic thing, just a little more specific in the second post. Sorry if I used different words to state my opinion, next time I will use the same words verbatim.

Bottom line is the actions of these 2 soldiers will most certaintly effect the moral and discipline within their units.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member

Originally Posted by Hydrodamoper
http:///forum/post/2970197
Once again.....I am NOT saying they do not have the right or obligation to question anything they want. I am just stating that it probably not the best time or place to question the legitimacy of their Commander-in-Chief (while in a combat zone). The last thing anyone needs is to wonder if the soldier next to him or her is debating if they should follow the orders of their commanders.
Lt Easterling, in particular, is my main issue. Being a leader in the military and questioning the legitamacy of your leaders gives any soldier under his command the right to question his orders based on their concerns. What if one of his soldiers thought that Lt Easterling's enlistment documents were fake, does that mean they could drop their weapons and go back inside the "green zone" until they see his enlistment contract?
I guess we should all stop playing guessing games then and Obama should provide or be forced to provide credible documents.So far he has not.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2970216
I guess we should all stop playing guessing games then and Obama should provide or be forced to provide credible documents.So far he has not.
Yes he has. You just refuse to accept them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top