Major General says president's eligibility needs proof

Obama's citizenship is being called into question by a biased "news" source with zero integrity dis-affectionately known as the Wing-nut Daily? Oh please say it's not so!

On their front page it says Obama eligibility tops the news at AOL, and who still uses AOL? Backwoods wingnuts without access to broadband. If you really want to know what tops the news go to digg.com... where you won't find any stories about Obama's citizenship. I couldn't find anything after skimming over the first six pages.

I hate to say this but those people you think there is an "Obama Conspiracy" will be viewed with the same disdain and "nutjob" status as 9/11 truthers, to you I say welcome to the club

Even if you are right is just won't fly with the general populace, at least for you it will be over in 4/8 years.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
I hate to say this but those people you think there is an "Obama Conspiracy" will be viewed with the same disdain and "nutjob" status as 9/11 truthers, to you I say welcome to the club

Even if you are right is just won't fly with the general populace, at least for you it will be over in 4/8 years.

Wait a minute... The people who say if you believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy you're a anti American whack job and will be sent to Gitmo. Now that a black man is in office? Suddenly if you don't believe in conspiracy's you're anti American whack job... White man in office, conspiracy's with the government make you an anti American whack job. Black man in office, conspiracy's with the government make you a patriotic hero!

So some old guy who grew up during the times of Jim Crow Laws says black men can't be president? Why is this news? Lots of old people who grew up during the days of the Jim Crow Laws say black people shouldn't even count as humans so why is this old guys rant about a black man being president news? Its like that Chris Brown Rhianna bs. Oh noes a black man hit his baby momma. If we reported every time that happened we would run out of trees for paper in less then a week.

Originally posted by dankai

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
You apparently do not understand the influence or connections generals have with the active duty brass or even more interesting, the defense industries.

Oh, that is certain.

But not in a court-case to establish whether a President is legitimate (he is) and whether the military should follow his orders, his standing as a Major General means nothing. In fact, because he is retired, it may hurt the case.

Of course, what the Major General and Taitz are doing is a grave threat to democracy.

WE DON'T LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY! WE LIVE IN A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC!!!!!!! SO WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS A GREAT SERVICE TO WHAT WE ARE!!!!!

You don't get it. One, Obama bin Hell in office as an illegal alien. Two, the SCOTUS refusing to obey the law. Three, the Congressional penchant for prevarication, dissembly, and other lies. Four, the issuing of our currency by private banks. And five, the lawlessness of 'law enforcement'. These all prove that America is not a republic, it is not a democracy. It is a despotism, pretending to be a republic to better control the stupid sheeple. You are not free, get over it. Just make the best of it, and lay low for now. Don't advertise your understanding if and when you get it. Survive.

Originally posted by jd140

Originally posted by Dbriefed
It's the duty of all military officers to defend the constitution, and uphold it as well. If they're not going behind closed doors and reviewing recent events and the constitution, they're not abiding by the oath they took.

I would hope they do this regardless of political party, race, or gender.

If officers are not defending the constitution, they're not fulfilling their primary role.

Officers are also forbidden to speak out against the President of The United States, no matter what their political affiliation might be. Faliure to do so can and most likely will result in them being decommisioned and seperated from service.

You are right. I was enlisted in the Air Force for 6 years. I re-checked the UCMJ just to be sure. I remembered my supervisors telling me that enlisted weren't aloud either not because it was punishable under the UCMJ but because it was extremely frowned upon within the enlisted ranks whom often work directly with commissioned officers and professionals who also highly frown upon it.. It just depends on what you would consider a private conversation and a public conversation. This explains it better..

Article 88 - Contempt toward officials

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Elements.

(1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;

(2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;

(3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and

(4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element

(5) That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.

Explanation.

The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither “Congress” nor “legislature” includes its members individually. “Governor” does not include “lieutenant governor.” It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, ad-verse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.

Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not ordinarily be charged. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.

-ChriS

[edit on 19-3-2009 by BlasteR]