It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Birther Army Doctor Convicted

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Birther Army Doctor Convicted


www.salon.com

A military jury today convicted a Birther Army doctor who refused to deploy to Afghanistan on the grounds that orders from President Obama are illegitimate, a development that marks the full maturation of the conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was not born in the United States.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Just happened on this piece of news which I thought was hilarious. Im not a birther and do believe Obama is the legitimate President of the United States and I find it troubling when false theories reach a stage where they effect real life and especially military decisions.

(And in any case: What he is doing and not doing today is more important than where his parents happened to be at the time of his birth)

www.salon.com (visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 16-12-2010 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:40 AM
link   
Good. Sorry, this guy was a delusional wingnut and we do not need delusional people in our military. Barack Obama was born in the United States. Funny how we never asked any white Presidents to show their birth certificates.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
(And in any case: What he is doing and not doing today is more important than where his parents happened to be at the time of his birth)


I disagree.

Where his parents happened to be at the time of his birth represents the "rule of law" as opposed to the "rule of men."



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

I disagree.

Where his parents happened to be at the time of his birth represents the "rule of law" as opposed to the "rule of men."


Important...but MORE important than his allegiance today?



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 



Important...but MORE important than his allegiance today?


That's actually a more troubling question than where he was born ..
Where does his loyalty lie??



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

That's actually a more troubling question than where he was born ..
Where does his loyalty lie??



The President is the most scrutinized person on the Planet so dont be too surprised if official msm stories about him turn out to be true.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by zcflint05
\. Funny how we never asked any white Presidents to show their birth certificates.



oh realy? is that a fact? or did you just assume that? how very ignorant of you.

obama is the only president to resist such investigation hence he's the only one you know of to undergo it,

do your research before you advertise your assumptions.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 



The President is the most scrutinized person on the Planet so dont be too surprised if official msm stories about him turn out to be true.


I doubt that..If it were true we would know more about his past and those missing years..
It's hard to scrutinise him when he has sealed his records..



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:29 AM
link   
hmm, another military person did the same thing and got away with it, perhaps it was just two different judges, he should appeal to a higher court.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
hmm, another military person did the same thing and got away with it, perhaps it was just two different judges, he should appeal to a higher court.


The inconsistency is amazing.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


The whole case was always an attack on Obama's birth issue..
Though I'm on the fence on that one, I think this guy went the wrong way about it..

It was never going to work IMO..
Though I do wish Obama would just show his real BC and stop the argument..



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
hmm, another military person did the same thing and got away with it, perhaps it was just two different judges, he should appeal to a higher court.


The circumstances were very different with the other gentleman. In fact, I remember the case. Cook (the other guy) was a reservist and had the option of changing his mind within a certain time period. Here:

Source



Because he's a reserve soldier who volunteered for an active duty tour he can "ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty,"


As for Lakin, he was doomed from the start. He should have gotten a good lawyer (who would have told him how flimsy his case was). We all knew he'd never get away with this.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

(And in any case: What he is doing and not doing today is more important than where his parents happened to be at the time of his birth)



At no time has Obama or a Court actually dealt with the issue directly, all and I mean all case's have been ruled on using other indirect means (including this one) never never never clearing up this question of whether or not he meets the constitutional requirement of "natural born". Natural born, not place of birth - see big difference there.

No past president has sealed records of their past like Obama has, one must ask why is that? especially on a conspiracy site such as ATS.

Now I will agree that policy and action also matter, polling numbers bear this out.

The quoted statement above and the "news" quote seems to be an "end justifies the means" type of thing designed to once again obfuscate the issue to place of birth rather than the real issue which is constitutional eligibility.

Once again I will state the obvious and say that Mr. Obama could clear this up in a day or so and end all this foolishness by releasing all the records - his refusal to do so speaks volumes! Is it pride or the point of it? or is TPTB don't want to suffer the consequence's of the TRUTH. Be hell to pay if the public were to find they were snookered huh! not only the riots, but the complete and utter destruction and discrediting of the entire progressive movement lock, stock and barrel would occur - that I believe is motivation enough to continue this charade.

The questions surrounding this issue are very legitimate and will remain so regardless of court decisions like this one which dance around the real crux of the matter.

As far as I can ascertain this responsibility lies with congress past, present and future.

One thing I do know for sure though, The truth will come out sooner or later!



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
No past president has sealed records of their past like Obama has, one must ask why is that? especially on a conspiracy site such as ATS.


It's been asked MANY times on ATS. No one has provided proof that he DID seal his records any differently than any past president. It's just a birther rumor.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

It's been asked MANY times on ATS. No one has provided proof that he DID seal his records any differently than any past president. It's just a birther rumor.


BH, its entirely understood that this has been asked but its also falling under trying to prove a negative. The point of proof is the actual lack of record availability to clear the question - proof enough? or are you maintaining that the records don't exist.

Funny we could access or had released prior Presidents records of one sort or another.

Real point of my post response is once again a court has ruled on something else legally while ignoring the elephant in the room.

One would think "O's" supporters would be clamoring for an answer from him by now just to make the issue go away - if on that side I know I would be - unless I was afraid of the answer that is.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
BH, its entirely understood that this has been asked but its also falling under trying to prove a negative.


You said he sealed his records. That's not a negative. If he sealed his records, let's see your proof. I can't find Clinton's college transcript, either, but that doesn't mean he sealed it. Your positive statement that Obama has had his records sealed would be EASILY proven, if it wasn't an assumption.



The point of proof is the actual lack of record availability to clear the question - proof enough? or are you maintaining that the records don't exist.


I'm sure the records do exist, but are they on the Internet for all to access? I don't think so.



Real point of my post response is once again a court has ruled on something else legally while ignoring the elephant in the room.


The court ruled on the case at hand. Lakin refused to deploy, thinking and hoping that it would force the court to impose on Obama's privacy rights. He was wrong. All that had to be proven is that Lakin refused to deploy. His reasons were irrelevant.



One would think "O's" supporters would be clamoring for an answer from him


We have the answer. We've had the answer since he posted his BC online.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
We have the answer. We've had the answer since he posted his BC online.


That online BC as a citation for anything is laughable.

I find it ironic that some are so protective of Obama's privacy - however once one steps into the public life that privacy is no longer expected either in tradition nor court - just look at other celebrities and politicians case's

IMHO if this question was about anyone else I really don't think many if any would be defending records release so vehemently.

BH, are you on record somewhere as being protective of others privacy such as John Kerry, Al Gore or GWB? or may I infer you are only protective of the "One"

Clinton was a Rhode's Scholar - one doe's not get that with low score's, not really an issue with him eh! - find another straw-man please.





posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
I find it ironic that some are so protective of Obama's privacy


I am protective of EVERYONE'S privacy.



BH, are you on record somewhere as being protective of others privacy such as John Kerry, Al Gore or GWB? or may I infer you are only protective of the "One"


You can infer whatever you'd like. You've been here longer than me. You should know my reputation for supporting rights for all, equally.



Clinton was a Rhode's Scholar - one doe's not get that with low score's, not really an issue with him eh! - find another straw-man please.


Obama was President of the Harvard Law Review. You don't get that with bad grades, either. And you think you have some kind of right to know Obama's school scores??? WTF? Do you want to know his sex and bathroom habits, too? Jesus!



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 


On topic: Dont you consider what the guy mentioned in the OP did, a crime?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join