US Army officer in Iraq latest questioner of 0bama's eligibility

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Sure... if you think the Obama / Hussein thing was floated for that reason.

I don't.

So it wasn't brought up to score political points in an association with some baddies or to heckle Barack Hussein Obama about 2/3's of his name? It didn't work but if it gained traction Obama would have changed his name to a symbol and asked to called "the junior Senator from Illinois" or something along the lines of "I like Ike" or "Barack the Vote".

So, Obama is Prince now?

But wasn't Prince from Minnesota?

Makes sense, since that state seems to lead in putting chops (see Jesse Ventura, Keith Ellison--and recently Al Franken issue) into public office.

[HAL 9000 96]

Sure... if you think the Obama / Hussein thing was floated for that reason.

I don't.

So it wasn't brought up to score political points in an association with some baddies or to heckle Barack Hussein Obama about 2/3's of his name? It didn't work but if it gained traction Obama would have changed his name to a symbol and asked to called "the junior Senator from Illinois" or something along the lines of "I like Ike" or "Barack the Vote".

So, Obama is Prince now?

But wasn't Prince from Minnesota?

Makes sense, since that state seems to lead in putting chops (see Jesse Ventura, Keith Ellison--and recently Al Franken issue) into public office.

Then I suppose some other moron with a gene or two missing from the 'rational thinking gene group' can also claim that the State of Minn is not actually part of the USA... and then claim that Obama is actually:

Isn't Michelle Bachmann from Minn as well?

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Could anyone explain how runty-aubergine Prince would suddenly have gained 13" in height?

(without the obvious shoe-risers, or even hidden-under-clothes stilts)

[slim 1,533]

Funny, a year or so ago any soldier who disagreed with Bush and the Iraq War was called a traitor. Now, this guy is called a hero? Politics, politics, politics...

I've got to admit, that's a good point.

Where did it say that this LT is disagreeing with Obama? All I read was that he was questioning the legitimacy of his status as commander in chief. If he's only asking to be shown "proof" of his legitimacy, then he's not questioning anything, is he?

the military officer described in the opriginal post is clearly in the wrong in regard to the code of military conduct. he is in service, and as such, does not have the same rights the rest of us enjoy. that being said, the first amendment specifically reserves the right to "the people" to seek redress of greivance against government. that's what we're doing here.

Like above, as long as this LT is only asking to be shown proof of legitimacy he may actually have a case.

The UCMJ is a pretty clear cut set of code. From what I saw in the stories, it didn't seem like he was disobeying or questioning any specific orders (which would be a violation) but moreover, asking to be shown proof of the legitimacy of the issuer of those orders. And he makes a great point, "it's his duty to do so." The UCMJ requires officers to follow orders but it also requires them to act in a legal manner. If orders are issued illegally (like, say, from a usurper) then it is his duty to "disobey" them and ensure a proper and legal course of action is taken.

Out of all the "Is Obama really American" cases out there, I sincerely believe this one has the firmest legal ground to stand on. But, what'll probably happen is what's happening in this thread already. It'll be dismissed, this guy will be ushered out of the limelight and then nobody will ever hear about it again.

[NickD 203]

No argument about making George Washington commander in chief, but what about Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan,Clinton, Bush, and even Obama? With no prior military experience. And how about even for a police action or whatever they want to call it, congress votes on it.

Somewhere in our constitution our forefathers were concerned about the militia taking over our government, but somewhere along the line, the president is the leader of this militia. Sure sounds like a contradiction. And we didn't have a congress declared war since WW II!

And we have a president that selects members of the supreme court, can blackmail congress into approving him with his simple veto power, either you elect this guy, or I will veto your bill kind of thing, so where in the hell is the balance of power? Then this guy can send troops anywhere without approval, we have become a dictatorship whether we want to admit it or not.

Oh, and the power to pardon criminals, forgot about that.

Edited February 26, 2009 by NickD

[Saddle Bronc 124]

No argument about making George Washington commander in chief, but what about Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan,Clinton, Bush, and even Obama? With no prior military experience.

You incorrectly included the Bushes in your list:

• Jorge Bush Sr was naval aviator in WW2
• Jorge Jr., aka "W", served in (Air) National Guard, which is part of US military reserve

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Funny, a year or so ago any soldier who disagreed with Bush and the Iraq War was called a traitor. Now, this guy is called a hero? Politics, politics, politics...

I've got to admit, that's a good point.

Where did it say that this LT is disagreeing with Obama? All I read was that he was questioning the legitimacy of his status as commander in chief. If he's only asking to be shown "proof" of his legitimacy, then he's not questioning anything, is he?

the military officer described in the opriginal post is clearly in the wrong in regard to the code of military conduct. he is in service, and as such, does not have the same rights the rest of us enjoy. that being said, the first amendment specifically reserves the right to "the people" to seek redress of greivance against government. that's what we're doing here.

Like above, as long as this LT is only asking to be shown proof of legitimacy he may actually have a case.

The UCMJ is a pretty clear cut set of code. From what I saw in the stories, it didn't seem like he was disobeying or questioning any specific orders (which would be a violation) but moreover, asking to be shown proof of the legitimacy of the issuer of those orders. And he makes a great point, "it's his duty to do so." The UCMJ requires officers to follow orders but it also requires them to act in a legal manner. If orders are issued illegally (like, say, from a usurper) then it is his duty to "disobey" them and ensure a proper and legal course of action is taken.

Out of all the "Is Obama really American" cases out there, I sincerely believe this one has the firmest legal ground to stand on. But, what'll probably happen is what's happening in this thread already. It'll be dismissed, this guy will be ushered out of the limelight and then nobody will ever hear about it again.

This is no more convincing to me that the folks who joined the military after 9/11 and then refused to be deployed to Iraq citing "illegal orders".

[joelunchbox 0]

Funny, a year or so ago any soldier who disagreed with Bush and the Iraq War was called a traitor. Now, this guy is called a hero? Politics, politics, politics...

I've got to admit, that's a good point.

Where did it say that this LT is disagreeing with Obama? All I read was that he was questioning the legitimacy of his status as commander in chief. If he's only asking to be shown "proof" of his legitimacy, then he's not questioning anything, is he?

the military officer described in the opriginal post is clearly in the wrong in regard to the code of military conduct. he is in service, and as such, does not have the same rights the rest of us enjoy. that being said, the first amendment specifically reserves the right to "the people" to seek redress of greivance against government. that's what we're doing here.

Like above, as long as this LT is only asking to be shown proof of legitimacy he may actually have a case.

The UCMJ is a pretty clear cut set of code. From what I saw in the stories, it didn't seem like he was disobeying or questioning any specific orders (which would be a violation) but moreover, asking to be shown proof of the legitimacy of the issuer of those orders. And he makes a great point, "it's his duty to do so." The UCMJ requires officers to follow orders but it also requires them to act in a legal manner. If orders are issued illegally (like, say, from a usurper) then it is his duty to "disobey" them and ensure a proper and legal course of action is taken.

Out of all the "Is Obama really American" cases out there, I sincerely believe this one has the firmest legal ground to stand on. But, what'll probably happen is what's happening in this thread already. It'll be dismissed, this guy will be ushered out of the limelight and then nobody will ever hear about it again.

Uh Hmm. Sorry to pop this bubble but President Obama was sworn in as the President. Therefore, he is that Lt's commander in chief. Now, if he wants to do something on his own time, have at. But, when he puts on that uniform, the only answer to Pres. Obama's orders is "Yes Sir!".

Apparently he heard of an opening for the Joe the GI slot on the Repub's ticket. He was too late to be Joe the Plumber.