Skip to content


April 13, 2010

U.S. military officials tell NBC News that the U.S. Army will court martial a lieutenant colonel who refuses to deploy to Afghanistan because he considers orders from President Obama to be “illegal.”


One of the few things I have less use for than Barack Obama is truthers and one of the few things worse than truthers are Military officers who disregard their oath and legal responsibilities to obey all orders of the President. Combine the two and you have absolute scum in my opinion. I hope they lock him up forever.

10 Comments leave one →
  1. majorscarlet permalink
    April 14, 2010 7:33 am

    i’ve never understood this kind of argument. why is someone a “truther” if they want the president to release and provide his original birth certificate. john kerry denied the charges of the swift boat vets but never released his documents. are the swift boat vets to be vilified for asking? it seems like an attempt to shame someone in to silence.

    • jenn1964 permalink*
      April 14, 2010 7:43 am

      That is a false argument. It isn’t the birth certificate that makes someone a truther. It is the insistence that despite the fact that the President has released the only document that is required to prove his citizenship people continue to insist he isn’t a natural born citizen. Not only has he released the same document that would be sufficient for him to enlist in the military or get a passport but the state of Hawaii has verified it.There is also contemporaneous evidence that he was born at the time and place claimed. Despite that these claims continue. All it is is an attempt to undermine the electoral process it has nothing to do with actual truth.

  2. majorscarlet permalink
    April 14, 2010 11:19 am

    Never mind. please pardon my ignorance on the issue. i spent some time googling and it certainly appears he was born in Hawaii.

    • jenn1964 permalink*
      April 14, 2010 11:24 am

      🙂 Like I said it’s legitimate to ask the question. It crosses into truther territory when all answers except the one that makes Obama unable to hold office are rejected.

  3. John David Galt permalink
    April 17, 2010 2:46 pm

    Granted that Obama was probably born in the US, it is not wrong for anyone to be asking the question. The refusal of every court, including the Supreme Court, to even consider and hear evidence on this question up to now is damning no matter what the underlying fact may be.

    And a military member’s Oath is not to the President personally, it is to the Constitution. That’s the difference between the United States and a monarchy. The Oath Keepers (.org) remember it, and so should everyone else.

  4. majorscarlet permalink
    April 17, 2010 5:17 pm

    John, where it gets fuzzy is military officers take an oath to defend the constitution but also to obey the orders of the President. i’m an active duty officer. i’m not going to take illegal orders and i agree with the oath keepers principles. the sad thing is as an officer i can’t join that group because it is considered “partisan” and not in “good taste” and i may end up getting that catch all charge against anyone that rocks the boat called “conduct unbecoming”. it’s a mechanism that keeps the careerist officer types in line and sends a chill through us “uppity” types.

    • jenn1964 permalink*
      April 17, 2010 6:42 pm

      I would say that beyond that once the electoral votes were cast. he was certified by congress, and sworn in by the Chief Justice he became the President and military personnel are subject to his lawful orders. It isn’t just people using the UCMJ to keep people down it is the essence of good order and discipline. Granted I was only a Petty Officer and that was many moons ago but I recall in my UCMJ classes that the major difference between military law and civilian law is that in civilian law offenses are committed against the common welfare, in military law the are committed against good order and discipline.

      The refusal of courts to hear evidence on this issue doesn’t bother me because it is so clearly a bogus issue.

      Snopes debunking

      discussion of why no evidence will ever be enough to prove that Obama is a natural born citizen

      The faux controversy isn’t going to go away soon. Yes, Obama was born in Hawaii, and yes, he is eligible to be president. But according to several experts in conspiracy theories, and in the psychology of people who believe in conspiracy theories, there’s little chance those people who think Obama is barred from the presidency will ever be convinced otherwise. “There’s no amount of evidence or data that will change somebody’s mind,” says Michael Shermer, who is the publisher of Skeptic magazine and a columnist for Scientific American, and who holds an undergraduate and a master’s degree in psychology. “The more data you present a person, the more they doubt it … Once you’re committed, especially behaviorally committed or financially committed, the more impossible it becomes to change your mind.”

      Any inconvenient facts are irrelevant. People who believe in a conspiracy theory “develop a selective perception, their mind refuses to accept contrary evidence,” Chip Berlet, a senior analyst with Political Research Associates who studies such theories, says. “As soon as you criticize a conspiracy theory, you become part of the conspiracy.”

      Evan Harrington, a social psychologist who is an associate professor at the Chicago School of Professional Psychology, agrees. “One of the tendencies of the conspiracy notion, the whole appeal, is that a lot of the information the believer has is secret or special,” Harrington says. “The real evidence is out there, [and] you can give them all this

      discussion of Hawaiian birth certificates

      Okubo also emphasized the certification form “contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate.”

      She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.”

      an Ohio judge allowed a litigant to present his evidence before dismissing a suit seeking to disqualify Obama

      The state of Hawaii has vouched for the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate

      factcheck debunking

      Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it’s stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates).


      The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport: “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.” The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all evident on the scanned version, and you can see the seal above.

      The document is a “certification of birth,” also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents’ hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health’s birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.

      a hearing was also held in CT and claims dismissed

      Finally here is a court decision that actually looked at what a natural born citizen is and guess what? Obama is one.

      That’s about all I can do to address this issue. If this isn’t enough for you I don’t know what will be.

  5. majorscarlet permalink
    April 17, 2010 6:46 pm

    just to clarify what i said, i understand completely my oath. within reason, i’ll obey it. i’ve been in 23 years and never had a problem with it. i hope there is never a generation of officers that has to make a choice between obeying the president and the constitution. the last time that happened we had a civil war.

    • jenn1964 permalink*
      April 17, 2010 6:51 pm

      there could come a point where a president clearly issues orders that are illegal, but the examples i have seen on Oathkeepers don’t seem to meet that threshold to me. I have no doubt that you will obey the oath.

  6. majorscarlet permalink
    April 17, 2010 6:48 pm

    “or” the constitution..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: