It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Soldier doubts ( Obama's) eligibility, defies president's orders

page: 17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 03:57 AM
After reading this thread on how someone's application was rejected for the police force because his IQ was too high, maybe they should have done an IQ test on this guy and if his was too high, refused his application too.

This is what happens if you let free thinkers into the military.

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 05:06 AM
reply to post by jd140


For all I know you just a new member trying to get some attention, I been here for a while and have posted about my military experience for quite a while and for a wide range of issues.

Not a soldier but an airman that has served in Iraq TWICE!... I hated Bush and HATED even more the War In Iraq a war which is legality was always in question, I went I did my job because that was what I sign up to, I didnt sign up in the Air Force to be a politician but I did remember that oath that I took about following the orders of those appointed over me.

Thats why the Army is the way it is, from top to bottom all you have is people doing whatever they want. Leaders have lost control of the Army for quite a while now...

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 05:31 AM

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:55 AM
reply to post by whitewave

"The military will tell him that its not his job to ask credentials of his president, and that he took an oath to follow the orders of the president."

WRONG! The oath is to uphold the CONSTITUTION and defend the USA. As a solder it is his DUTY to ask this question, since his oath is NOT to follow a usurper but to protect the USA Against said Usurper. The Constitution was written to prevent a madman from using the army against US citizens.

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 08:16 AM

Originally posted by 5thElement
This is beyond unbelievable...

Since when soldiers have rights to question orders ???

Nuremberg trials ?

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 08:32 AM
I find it funny how the people that claim Obama couldn't even use the certificate he presented for any legal use, to get a passport for example, never present any evidence for this.

First let's look at what Obama presented. He presented a Certification of Live Birth, also known as a short form.

Short forms, known sometimes as computer certifications, are not universally available, but are cheaper than photocopies and much more easily accessible. Limited information is taken from the original birth record (the long form) and stored in a database that can be accessed quickly when birth certificates are needed in a short amount of time. Whereas the long form is a copy of the actual birth certificate, a short form is a document that certifies the existence of such certificate, and is usually titled a "Certification of Birth" or "Certificate of Live Birth". The short form typically includes the child's name, date of birth, sex, and place of birth, although some also include the names of the child's parents. When the certification does include the names of the parents, it can be used in lieu of a long form birth certificate in almost all circumstances.

This is from Wikipedia and some might say "you can't trust anything on wikipedia". Fine, how about the State Department?

This is what the State Department asks for for proof of citizenship:


a. APPLICANTS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES: Submit a previous U.S. passport or certified birth certificate. A birth certificate must include your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records.

Obama's certificate includes all of this as seen here.

It also includes "the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records" as seen here.

This idea that Obama couldn't use this certificate for any legal proof of citizenship is unfounded, just as the other claims.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by converge]

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 09:48 AM

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 09:49 AM
I don't know why everyone is giving Obama such a hard time. I think alot of the issues that have come up with his eligibility quite honestly, is piddly, and nit pickingly desperate. In my opinion it all has to with his skin color which has nothing to do with anything.

I mean, George Dubya actually wiped his butt with our constitution,(among other things) and got away scott free. There's something to take issue with.

Lets take a look at the issues that have been raised with Obama that have resulted in criticism. No American flag on his lapel, no flag on his jet, didn't put his hand over his heart during our anthem and now this this whole Birth Certificate thing that won't seem to go away. I mean this info actually was considered news worthy by the mainstream media!

As for the soldier I want to start by saying, thank you for doing what you do. I understand where your coming from, I do, but what I don't understand is how you can accept George Dubya , and defy Obama over something as pety as a Birth certificate. There has to be more to it than that. I know it's the law, but let's be honest here........ there is no law.

Let me end by saying it didn't really matter to me who became President. I didn't even vote. Obama was going to be our President regardless, I knew that early on. The game is going to continue no matter who is President.

Perhaps we can give Obama a chance, a fair shake, that's the least we can do. Who knows where that might lead.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by Zeus2573]

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:11 AM

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:17 AM

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:19 AM
reply to post by Zeus2573

Obama documentation — .

Original, vault copy birth certificate — Not released

Certificate of Live Birth — Released — Counterfeit

Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released

Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released

Soetoro adoption records — Not released

Fransiskus Assisi School School application — Released

Punahou School records — Not released

Selective Service Registration — Released — Counterfeit

Occidental College records — Not released

Passport (Pakistan) — Not released

Columbia College records — Not released

Columbia thesis — Not released

Harvard College records — Not released

Harvard Law Review articles — None (maybe 1, unsigned?)

Baptism certificate — None

Medical records — Not released

Illinois State Senate records — None

Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost

Law practice client list — Not released

University of Chicago scholarly articles — None


posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:33 AM
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

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. There is one MAJOR HOLE in that theory. Nobody has ever come up with one shred of solid evidence that his mother was EVER in Kenya.

We do know through travel records that his father was in Kenya in 1960, but not again until 1965. That means that if Barack Obama was really born in Kenya in 1961, his father was not there. Now what person in their right mind truly believes that his pregnant 18-year-old mother decided to leave her comfortable home in Hawaii where she was staying with her parents, and travel to Kenya during the late stages of the Mau Mau Rebellion WITHOUT HER HUSBAND, to give birth, then traveled back to Hawaii? IT JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN. The only reasonable conclusion is to believe the state of Hawaii's verification of the authenticity of his birth certificate is true, since the other "option" is so obviously ridiculous.

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. Over the years it has evolved to the following Supreme Court opinion. The SCOTUS has already ruled several times on the definition of “natural born citizen” (PERKINS v. ELG; US v. Wong Kim Ark.)

"It is without question that a citizen born on US soil is natural born."

Case closed.

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:56 AM

Originally posted by nj2day
If he follows through with his dissent, it will result in a court martial and possibly jail time.

Jail? A place with food, a roof, time to read and sleep jail? Sounds like an exit strategy from war, not punishment.

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:03 AM

Originally posted by NeonStar
I bet this military officer is some sort of a red neck racist..

How very non-judgmental of you. It's a wonder we have such racial equality with prejudice thinking like this.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by saint4God]

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:08 AM
To all of the active duty service men and women. If you want to do something to stop this fraud fila an articl 138 complaint.
There are already some being prepared right now!!!

For all the others this is what an article 138 complaint is.


Article 138 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) gives every member of the Armed Forces the right to complain that he or she was “wronged” by his or her commanding officer. The right even extends to those subject to the UCMJ on inactive duty for training.

- Matters appropriate to address under Article 138 include discretionary acts or omissions by a commander that adversely affects the member personally and are

-- In violation of law or regulation

-- Beyond the legitimate authority of that commander

-- Arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion; or

-- Clearly unfair (e.g., selective application of administrative standards/actions)

- Matters NOT appropriate for Article 138 action are

-- Acts not under the control of the commander

-- Complaints relating to UCMJ or Article 15 actions

-- Complaints filed to seek disciplinary action against another

- Procedures for filing complaint

-- Within 180 days of the alleged wrong, the member submits his or her complaint in writing, along with supporting evidence, to the commander alleged to have committed the wrong

-- The commander receiving the complaint must promptly notify the complainant in writing whether the demand for redress is granted or denied

--- The reply must state the basis for denying the requested relief

--- The commander may consider additional evidence and must attach a copy of the additional evidence to the file

-- If the commander refuses to grant the requested relief, the member may submit the complaint, along with the commander’s response, to the officer exercising General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) over the commander

--- Must be submitted within 90 days from the notice of denial

--- May be submitted directly to the GCMCA or forwarded through any superior commissioned officer

--- An intermediate commander or any other superior commissioned officer receiving such a complaint will immediately forward the file to the GCMCA. The officer may attach additional pertinent documentary evidence and comment on availability of witnesses or evidence, but may not comment on the merits of the complaint

- GCMCA’s Responsibilities

-- Conduct or direct further investigation of the matter, as appropriate

-- Notify the complainant, in writing, of the action taken on the complaint and the reasons for such action

-- Refer the complainant to appropriate channels that exist specifically to address the alleged wrongs (i.e., performance reports, suspension from flying status, assessment of pecuniary liability). This referral constitutes final action

-- Retain two complete copies of the file, and return the originals to the complainant

-- After taking final action, forward a copy of the complete file to HQ USAF/JAG for review and disposition by the SecAF

- The GCMCA is prohibited from delegating his or her responsibilities to act on complaints submitted pursuant to Article 138

- Matters outside the scope of the Article 138 complaint process

-- Acts or omissions affecting the member which were not initiated or ratified by the commander

-- Disciplinary action under the UCMJ, including nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 (however, deferral of post-trial confinement is within scope of Article 138)

-- Actions initiated against the member where the governing directive requires final action by SecAF

-- Complaints against the GCMCA related to the resolution of an Article 138 complaint (except for alleging the GCMCA failed to forward a copy of the file to the SecAF)

-- Complaints seeking disciplinary action against another; and

-- Complaints based on a commander's actions implementing the recommendations

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:11 AM

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
Doesn't he seem American enough to you people?

This one made me chuckle, I'm still trying to figure out what "seem American enough" means. Feel free to help me out with this one.

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:12 AM
I simply can't believe all what i here these days about our President. Don't you think this has been verified already I THINK YES. My god just because the man is not your typical president, People are refusing to except change. The man said he was not a muslim and still yet to this day the ones that didn't vote for him say he is. This Solider must be a skin head or A disapointed repulican. Please people can we just move on with life and except the fact that our President is of mixed race. No one ever had it so rough as President and he has only been in Office for 36 day's

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:16 AM

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
You are a moron.

All this noise is getting in the way of an interesting discussion. Namecalling is not beneficial here and just makes the caller seem irrational and judgemental.

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:20 AM

Originally posted by Afrosamurai
Wow. They say they will protect this nation. But I guess that only matters as long as the President is white. The second you get a black man in office the racists come out. What's next? A soldier doesn't like black people next thing we know he refuses to serve under a black general. Or maybe a black Sec. of Defense?

This statement is racist in itself. The topic is not, "Soldier refuses to serve black president" nor "Soldier does not believe a black man is qualified to be president." This inquiry is very simple to solve. With proof of citizenship, the soldier has no need to question qualifications and can go back to work. Jail is less harsh than the combat lines in Iraq/Afghanistan I'm sure.

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:25 AM
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

I say put this soldier on trial for mutiny and then keel haul them.

But thats just me.

It's not your place to question your president soldier. Do your job or quit. If you don't like the president. Thats your problem but don't put your fellow soldiers in jeopardy by willfully refusing orders.

new topics

top topics

<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in