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.


Bombshell: Orders revoked for soldier challenging prez Major victory for Army warrior questioning O

page: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:59 PM
Do you really think that the Republican Party would have allowed the question of Obama's nativity to remain unchallenged, if they had even the tiniest shred of evidence to suggest he was born outside the US?

Look, when Barak and Michelle bumped fists as a victory gesture, Republicans were calling it a "terrorist bump". A "terrorist bump" wouldn't disqualify someone from becoming President - there's no law against it. Yet Republicans were seizing on that gesture, hoping to scare voters away from Obama.

Don't you think that, if they had *anything* to offer that showed Obama wasn't born on the US, Republicans would have tried to use that to show he was disqualified from running for or becoming President? And yet, they were silent about that. The best they could come up with was "terrorist bump", which the vast majority of voters knew to be simply a gesture of triumph.

As for the revocation of the order to report for duty - the reason can be much simpler than the Army's admission of guilt regarding Obama's legitimacy as President. It could be that they simply didn't care to have someone on board who was whining about an unreasonable technicality. We don't know *all* the reasons cited by this soldier for not reporting. While he apparently used Obama's alleged ineligibility, he might have mentioned dozens of other reasons - psychiatric or medical conditions, family issues (compassionate leave, etc.), who knows?

His concerns about the Geneva Conventions was utter nonsense. The people we're fighting in Afghanistan are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions. They don't recognize them, they don't care about them, and they don't honor them . Come to think of it, neither do we - or at least, we didn't during Bush's administration. The Taliban doesn't treat their prisoners well. AFAIK, they don't normally take prisoners. On the occasions when they've taken prisoners they've tended to behead them. Geneva Conventions, my butt.

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 01:11 AM
reply to post by GuyverUnit I

As a reservist, he does have the right to volunteer and then un-volunteer himself. However, if he or his unit is mobilized by the federal government (non-vol) then he cannot refuse unless he has some pretty exceptional circumstances.

Ehren Watada was on activy duty when he was ordered to Iraq. He was on active duty AND his unit was due to deploy. This put him in a non-volunteer status as he was assigned to go. If Maj. Cook's unit was assigned to deploy then he would have to go..again unless he had some prety exceptional circumstances. The decision is usually left to commanding HQ to grant if said circumstances are exceptional enough. Remember, many soldiers are allowed to leave the warzone for the death of a parent, wife, etc. Why deploy someone who potentially will return just as soon?

In the end, there simply isn't anything exceptional about this except that a "win" is claimed where there wasn't a fight to begin with.

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 01:57 AM
There was an enlisted guy a few months ago that tried to do the same thing. Only, he probably didn't get away with it that easy since she wasn't a C.O.. Though, Taitz does seem to be trying to rally as much support as possible and vice versa. If you are an enlisted soldier and you are questioning the chain of command, you're in a pretty bad spot. If nothing else from your co-workers, supervisors, and superiors in general.

ATS THREAD: Soldier doubts ( Obama's) eligibility, defies president's orders
February 24, 2009 thread by DimensionalDetective

Also from WND, by the way (not so shocking though I guess).

HERE is the original story from World Net Daily.

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.

The statement was publicized by 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.

"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," his statement said.

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.

It's interesting the case history on this site regarding Obama's birth certificate though.

Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:

New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.

Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Berg's latest appeal, requesting an injunction to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, was denied.

Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.

Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.

Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.

In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.

In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:

In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.

In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.

In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.

In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.

In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.


[edit on 17-7-2009 by BlasteR]

[edit on 17-7-2009 by BlasteR]

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 03:34 PM
Federal judge dismisses lawsuit questioning Obama's natural born citizen status

Columbus judge says suit ‘moot’ because of previous Army decision

A federal judge tossed out a controversial lawsuit Thursday brought here by a U.S. Army reservist seeking to avoid deployment to Afghanistan because he questions Barack Obama’s eligibility as president.

Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook filed the suit July 8 with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia seeking conscientious objector status and a temporary injunction.

U.S. District Judge Clay Land sided with the government, represented by Maj. Rebecca Ausprung, which claimed Cook’s suit was “moot” because the Army had already told him he doesn’t have to deploy, so the relief he is seeking has been granted.

“The same Constitution upon which Major Cook relies in support of his contention that President Barack Obama is not eligible to serve as President of the United States very clearly provides that federal courts shall only have the authority to hear actual ‘cases and controversies,’” Land stated in his written order. “By restricting the Judiciary’s power to actual ‘cases and controversies,’ our founders wisely established a separation of powers that would ensure the freedom of their fellow citizens. They concluded that the Judicial Branch, the unelected branch, should not inject itself into purely ‘political disputes,’ and that it should not entangle itself in hypothetical debates which had not ripened to an actual legal dispute.”

Well, no surprise here. They are just not going to deal with it, no matter how many times this comes up.

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 03:50 PM
reply to post by TrueAmerican

They have no jurisdiction to deal with it.

Cmon man, you know that the only people that can do anything about this issue and settle it once and for all is Congress.

The judicial branch cannot do anything about this because of the separation of the three branches of government and checks and balances.

Read the constitution. It will tell you how to proceed in this matter. The legislative branch of the government is the only avenue that people have in order to push this issue (or as I believe, non issue) forward. Your never going to get the SCOTUS to hear any of these cases. EVER. It's not going to happen. They have no jurisdiction in the matter. Only the legislative branch has such jurisdiction.

The way the law works is the only people that have any power over the president in this country (aside from his handlers, I am referring in a strictly constitutional sense) is the Legislative branch. They can bring up this issue and force the President to provide evidence to the American people, once and for all whether or not he is a natural born American citizen.

The impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first pass by a simple majority articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached". Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer. This may include the impeachment of the vice president, although legal theories suggest that allowing a person to be the judge in the case where she or he was the defendant would be a blatant conflict of interest. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of someone other than the President), the duties would fall to the President pro tempore of the Senate.

In order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring them from holding future federal office, elected or appointed. Conviction by the Senate does not bar criminal prosecution. Even after an accused has left office, it is possible to impeach to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of their prior office (such as a pension). If there is no charge for which a two-thirds majority of the senators present vote "guilty", the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.

Source: Wiki

[edit on 7/17/2009 by whatukno]

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 04:02 PM
Actually his orders were revoked because he was a volunteer who decided not to volunteer.

"I volunteer to work this shift." Two days later. "I don't want to now." Taken off schedule for that shift.

That's all it is.

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 04:10 PM

Originally posted by whatukno
Cmon man, you know that the only people that can do anything about this issue and settle it once and for all is Congress.

I won't argue that point, but come on man, there's bailouts to get, taxpayers to rape, healthcare to socialize, nations to plunder, 9/11 crimes to cover up, whistleblowers to silence, false flag ops to plan, new world order coins to mint, Federal Reserves to protect, and big business to enrich.

Who in the Congress has time for an illegal President?

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:57 PM
Southern Guardian asks what lies has Obama committed while weedwhacker thinks catching a news source slanting the truth is something only WND is guilty of would be par for the course if all of them had not been shown to be bias and fudge the truth. The fact is THIS article is true NOT because the others before it were no more than the one you say they got caught on makes this one a lie.

As many lies as evolutionists get caught in for Hoax's weedwhacker, I'd think you would be dissing darwin a dozen times over this year alone.

WND has compiled the following extensive list of those abandoned promises:

Broken promise No. 1: 'Sunlight Before Signing'

When Obama campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in Manchester, N.H., on June 22, 2007, he announced his "Sunlight Before Signing" promise.

"When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as the president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I sign it," he said.

He repeated that promise on his campaign website:

"Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."

However, Obama signed his first bill, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, on Jan. 20 – only two days after its passage.

He signed a second bill expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program just three hours after Congress passed it.

Again, on Feb. 17, Obama signed his 1,000-page $787 billion stimulus aimed at jolting the declining U.S. economy. He did so only one business day after it passed through Congress – without allowing for five days of public comment.

Broken promise No. 2: Capital gains tax elimination

According to his comprehensive tax plan released during his campaign, Obama promised to "eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses."

Just weeks prior to the election, Obama advisers Austan Goolsbee and Jason Furman told the Wall Street Journal that Obama planned tax cuts that included "the elimination of capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups."

People who invest in small businesses have only been allowed to exclude 50 percent of that gain from capital gains taxes. While Obama's $787 billion economic-stimulus package reduces that tax liability – raising the exclusion to 75 percent – it does not eliminate it.

Broken promise No. 3: New American jobs tax credit

During his transition, Obama's promised to provide a $3,000 refundable tax credit to existing businesses for every additional full-time U.S. employee hired in 2009 and 2010.

"If a company that currently has 10 U.S. employees increases its domestic full time employment to 20 employees, this company would get a $30,000 tax credit – enough to offset the entire added payroll tax costs to the company for the first $50,000 of income for the new employees," the transition website stated. "The tax credit will benefit all companies creating net new jobs, even those struggling to make a profit."

Obama's promise was never included in the stimulus package.

Broken promise No. 4: Hiatus on 401(k) penalties

Many unemployed and financially strapped Americans have considered early withdrawals on 401(k) and retirement accounts to survive the current recession. However, the IRS imposes strict penalties of up to 10 percent plus federal, state and local income taxes on such advances.

Workers who have taken $10,000 in early withdrawals from retirement plans have lost as much as 40 percent to taxes and penalties, depending upon tax brackets.

In October 2008, Obama released his "Rescue Plan for the Middle-Class" in which he promised to allow financially distressed Americans to withdraw up to $10,000 from their 401(k) accounts and retirement savings without having to pay penalties. They would only pay income taxes on the amount.

"Since so many Americans will be struggling to pay the bills over the next year, I propose that we allow every family to withdraw up to 15% from their IRA or 401(k) – up to a maximum of $10,000 – without any fine or penalty throughout 2009," Obama said. "This will help families get through this crisis without being forced to make painful choices like selling their homes or not sending their kids to college."

However, Obama's promise was never included in his recent stimulus package.

Broken promise No. 5: 'No jobs for lobbyists'

Obama promised America he would loosen the grip of lobbyists on

Southern Guardian asks the wrong side to prove his eligibility as he has never been vetted by the correct party to begin with. The party he belonged to in Illinois was the Democrats for socialism another item of information he lied about. No one but no one has seen this mans Birth Certificate and the same arguments given by these same Obamaphiles that forced a one John McCain to have to show his vaulted BC are just as relevant, just as valid and just as worthy of Obama to show his.

Obama has been reluctant to show his BC from the very beginning and all efforts to dance around it making jokes about it but never ever answering the question. He has been asked hundreds of times never once giving an answer, NOT ONCE! Many have answered for him however in this we see it harder to find him guilty of a lie but omitting a required truthful answer to the question that to this day has not satisfied the public.

Fifty Million Americans have said he needs to answer this important question to resolve this growing concern. 50 Million Americans is no fringe of the republic and the DOH in Hawaii statement only answered requirements to store a Document of his Birth and NOT the requirements that he is eligible to be President of the United States.

From the very start when Democrats were asking to see McCain's BC the other side has been asking for the same thing with Obama giving everything BUT what we asked for. No body asked for a certificate of live birth because it could be a fraud. When it was discovered to be a fraud, Southern Guardian used the DOH statement to say it was the genuine article.

If that is true, then the DOH wasn't talking about the vaulted one was she?

You can't have it both ways SG, but regardless of which one she was talking about, the questions she answered were the ones never asked.

What we have wanted and have wanted all along is to know what his vaulted BC says. SG claims ther are laws in place that keep Obama from showing it.

My question is, why didn't those laws protect McCain from having to show his?

The fact is the DOH never seen the document either, all she reported as seeing was that they had one on record. She then acted as if it was too much to ask that we find out whether the next man to have access to the most powerful weapons in the world, is eligible for the Job under the constitution. This attempt to make us feel like we were imposing on the DOH was as transparent as it was obvious a ruse to get people to quit asking the question that to date is unanswered and un-fulfilled for the obligation to substantiate the requirements to hold Office as the POTUS.

Their really is no other person required to do this other than Obama himself and he has had many others try to answer this for him but it is up tp him to prove and all those who claim he has proven it, say so because someone else told them he did because they knew someone else who said he did, who knew someone else and so on but none have and none ever will because it is impossible to prove he is a Natural Born Citizen when his actions are those of a man (BC or no BC not withstanding), who is doing his damnedest's to prove he is guilty.

How is he doing that you ask?

By doing everything a man not born here would have to do in Obama's position. Having no other choice other than to lose his office in shame and humiliation. Because no other man with this kind of education, would act this way, if he didn't have to just by showing us the VBC.

No other man this vain, would allow this much doubt to be cast over his popularity and admiration to have it be tarnished with a shred of doubt, unless he had no other choice.

No man who knows as much as he does about the rule of law and the constitution of the United States of America, would give the American people who gave him there best efforts at getting him elected, anything less, than the best proof of his birth he is able to give but for those he is trying to deceive.

This is not going to go away SG and you can ridicule them as "birthers" as "Fringers" or as "racist" till you're blue in the face, but the truth will come out and we won't stop just because you think you are more stubborn than we are without resorting to all the tawdry little names you call them

While the number of those who voted for this impostor and those like yourself who have been complicit in enabling him to get away with this travesty for one of the biggest cons pulled off so easily over the American Peoples heads, YOU, are to blame. You can suggest the FBI would have seen it or the CIA but the CIA won't give an answer and the FBI says they have never checked on Obama's back round but many wish they would have when they had the chance.

The news paper section exclaiming his birth only proves his mother wanted to let people know back in her old neighborhood that her baby was born. Lots of people did that back then and the papers didn't question it. Ironically the people living next door to them and those near by, don't recall seeing little Barry at all and what snopes says is only what was told to them by guess who? The Obama Camp the ones with the biggest reason to lie about it is the one they take for the truth? First, it is STILL not what we asked for and only talks to the already rejected and proven bogus COLB. Coming up with extremes such as "the birthers won't be happy till he goes door to door with his vaulted BC" may give some reason to doubt but again, that isn't what we asked for. I am sure if a federal Court Judge seen the document and actually said where it says he was born, what hospital and the Doctor who delivered him, we'd be satisfied in spite of your doubts we would be.

The fact is no physician has ever come forward to announce he was the one who delivered the first black president. You would think someone, somewhere, would have or at least know of someone who knows the name of this elusive Doctor but according to relatives he was born at home in Kenya so why would there be such a someone.

That executive privilege garbage is only good if you assume he is even eligible to even have executive privilege and under the mitigating circumstances that may very well be suspended by the supreme court and sotomayor in a case having anything to do with Obama would have to recuse herself from that hearing.

This issue alone will grow and be the thorn in his re-election campaign because the people won't forget how he hid from the truth.

Because we won't let them forget

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 01:26 AM
reply to post by Cypher-X

The only people that can settle this argument is Congress. This is outlined within the Constitution of the United States under Article I Section 2, As well as the 12th Amendment. and the 20th Amendment.

This is further bolstered with the fact that as Citizens we have no constitutional authority to elect the President. And as we do not have any authority to elect a president. We have no legal standing to ask for any qualifications to determine whether that person is eligible or not.

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 01:32 AM
Bullcrap in my opionon (maybe I read it wrong, but this dude just sounds lazy). And I'm a hardcore Obama hater.

I am also a marine though and I didnt like Bush but went to iraq when I was called in. Dont f'ing join the military if you are gonna bitch and complain.

As a marine this seriously boils my blood..

This dude doesnt deserve to call himself a soldier. What a pussy.

F Obama though. He isnt my president. This Obama a-hole is a liar and deceiver.


[edit on 20-7-2009 by jeasahtheseer]

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 10:23 AM

Originally posted by whatukno

They have no jurisdiction to deal with it.

They have no jurisdiction of a legitimately installed President. If he was never eligible in the first place their would be no need to impeach him.

He simply relinquishes his office, abdicates his throne, gets escorted out by a couple of Marines along with biden. Then charges would be brought up he would be indicted by a criminal court not the congress or senate.

This is not the same as a President who while in office becomes ineligible to hold office due to his health, dimentia, gets a brain tumor and can't think straight but refuses to leave etc,. This is a case where an impostor has usurped the office using very spurious means to gain access to it and has done this under false pretense .

You can't simply say the scotus won't touch this, I remember a specific election they said the scotus could not touch either but that is history now and they decided an election that year.

Nothing like this has ever happened before and their are brighter minds than yours and mine coming up with legal arguments in case it does happen all the time, one of which is the one I just gave.

All you have done here is make a bare assertion

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 10:32 AM
reply to post by Cypher-X

You can't simply say the scotus won't touch this, I remember a specific election they said the scotus could not touch either but that is history now and they decided an election that year.

Ah yes the 2000 election where What what what?!? The SCOTUS told Florida to submit their electors. They didn't choose the President they told Florida to do it based on Florida law. They said they couldn't just keep recounting and recounting and recounting the votes over and over.

Anywho. No the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction.

We the People didn't vote for the president. We the People voted for electors. The electors voted for the president. Then Congress confirmed him and the chief justice swore him in.

See now that he has been legally sworn in to the presidency, the only way to legally remove him would be through impeachment. Sorry, sad but true. So, please stop pestering the SCOTUS and start pestering the Congress.

Yall keep saying this man is ineligible however no one has brought forth evidence of said claim. They want to demand from the POTUS that he show his long form birth certificate which is against the 4th Amendment of the USC.

And because the people voted for Electors and not the president himself they have no legal standing to ask the SCOTUS to hear a case of eligibility. As if the SCOTUS could do anything about the issue now anyway.

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 11:56 AM

Originally posted by whatukno
Ah yes the 2000 election where What what what?!? The SCOTUS told Florida to submit their electors. They didn't choose the President they told Florida to do it based on Florida law. They said they couldn't just keep recounting and recounting and recounting the votes over and over.

Anywho. No the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction.

We the People didn't vote for the president. We the People voted for electors. The electors voted for the president. Then Congress confirmed him and the chief justice swore him in.

See now that he has been legally sworn in to the presidency, the only way to legally remove him would be through impeachment. Sorry, sad but true. So, please stop pestering the SCOTUS and start pestering the Congress.

Yall keep saying this man is ineligible however no one has brought forth evidence of said claim. They want to demand from the POTUS that he show his long form birth certificate which is against the 4th Amendment of the USC.

And because the people voted for Electors and not the president himself they have no legal standing to ask the SCOTUS to hear a case of eligibility. As if the SCOTUS could do anything about the issue now anyway.


I understand how the electoral college screws many of the voters over and think it is one of the most idiotic constructs of politics and Government. Regardless of whether we have no constitutional jurisdiction on electing a President, it is another story when the people want one fired. I know impeachment is unlikely and you can not recall at the federal level but their is one little known method to remove federal elected officials. Just who was it in the electorate that vetted Obama?

Who is or are they and names please.

I really don't see how any of this parliamentary rules would have anything to do with someone who was never eligible in the first place. If was never eligible, he was never a legitimate acting President having no Presidential power or authority what so ever.

But Ill entertain your supposition that what you say is true.

There is a video (which mysteriously disappeared) showing his grandmother, on his fathers side) stating she watched her grandson be born. Since she has never left Africa, he could not have been born in Hawaii!

we do have proof that he submitted a scholarship application, as a Foreign Citizen in order to receive a scholarship, claiming foreign citizenship, thus supporting he is NOT A US citizen.

We have his father saying he was a citizen of Kenya during his gradeschool, the Kenyan ambasador said on live radio that barack Obama Jr was born in Kenya, we have his sister,s conflicting statment, we have his grandmothers statment, his aunts conflicting story we have the two room mates he had in college saying he was born in kenya.

All the people in Kenya who he grew up with say he was born in Kenya.

We have more evidence saying he was born in Kenya than he has evidence suggesting otherwise unless you want to say the most popular Government Document used by ID theft rings, the COLB, trumps all that.

I don't think it does and when you look at all the controversial issues surrounding the COLB, it only exascerbates the rate of growing suspicion that he slipped through the cracks

Barack Hussein Obama claimed to be a Foreign National to receive a scholarship. We want to know why he DID NOT provide a true and notarized copy of his original birth certificate when the many suspicious and controversial issues surrounding this mans backround, so many conflicting stories about his true place of birth, the many social security numbers he has used, documemts he has had sealed where these issues neccessitate nothing less than his original Vaulted BC by virtue of the many discrepancies alone and his complete and total un-willingness to co-operate with full disclosure these same issues

expulsion seems a viable option, what do you think whatuknow?

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 12:34 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 11:44 AM
reply to post by whatukno

It was insulting to me because as a math major A=B, B=C then A=C. You said conscripting soldiers is a disaster. Over 80% of soldiers in WWII were conscripted, including my Dad. Then WWII = disaster. Your post sounded like you were blaming the soldiers. Soldiers can be blamed for individual losses but they can't lose the war.
The military is volunteer now. Its the military if one volunteers they should think it through. Its the military they may order you to go KILL people. What these people are doing to get out of fulfilling their obligation borders on treason.
My Dad turned 22 the week before his company rolled throught the gates of Buchenwald, if you can find one, ask one of the prisoner survivors about what a disaster that was.
I was a soldier for 6 years and I thought about it before I signed and raised my hand to swear I would fulfill my obligation.

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7   >>

log in