OT: Military Officer Refuses Order from Obama

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Arraya: Have you ever read any James Bamford? He’s got three books and has really dissected the US intelligence community (especially the NSA).

When you have a moment, check his stuff out.

Great posting, by the way. Like I said, I’m getting more and more nervous, because I’m agreeing with you more and more.[/quote]

Thanks Allan.. I will add it to my Allan from Fallbrook list of reading which is about 6 or 7 deep now;) I’m going on vacation in Aug, so I may knock a few out then.

[gromit]

[quote=partypup]I’m compelled to post this because of the implications. I think they are potentially huge.

“Obama birth certificate deniers won a small victory in court on Monday. Meanwhile, one such conspiracy theorist refused to deploy to Afghanistan on the grounds that Barack Obama isn’t a legitimate president.

A judge said he would listen to “the merits” of Alan Keyes’ case challenging Obama’s presidency. While a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office said the move was merely procedural, birth conspiracy proponents are encouraged.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/14/stefan-frederick-cook-sol_n_231383.html

I love how an Army Major is now dubbed a “conspiracy theorist”. Hilarious! But notice what they don’t mention: the military actually rescinded the order rather than address the matter. This omission is telling and significant, and we have to reach beyond the Huff Post to get the truth:

“His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.

“We won! We won before we even arrived,” she said with excitement. “It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!”

She continued, “They just said, ‘Order revoked.’ No explanation. No reasons – just revoked.”

“Taitz said she will attend the hearing to amend the temporary restraining order to an injunction because MORE members of the military have joined the cause.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009

Now, I’m curious why the military would rescind orders to a Major (not a colonel or a General, by the way) rather than deal with this issue…? It doesn’t really matter, because now the cat is out of the bag, and it is starting to hiss.

Think about it: Bush was a de facto “selected” (not elected) president, and that fraud had two terms in office. But the difference here is that the military never revoked any deployment orders under Bush because of questions about his illegitimate presidency – even when he was doing whack things like sending troops to war for no reason. This situation now is different, because for whatever reason the military is not willing to simply accept Obama’s legitimacy because he won and he’s sitting in the Oval Office. We’ve never faced a situation like this before. It would appear to me that the situation in the U.S. just became much more dangerous and unpredictable because, with this case, the mask is off.

Ask yourself: what’s to stop tens of thousands of military personnel from obtaining the exact same outcome as Major Stefan Cook? Not much, apparently. And where will that lead? The military either has to (a) deal with the issue (something civilian courts have refused to do because everyone except Obama apparently lacks standing) or (b) risk scattered revolts popping up in their ranks. Very dicey. Oh, and all this as our country is dealing with a collapsing economy and power plays for resources by Russia and China – who actually have more money than we do to continue to fund their military enterprises.

I remember discussing this issue with a colleague last year. He kept insisting that the birth certificate issue should be dropped and that people need to just “get over it” because Obama was going to win, anyway. I told him that wasn’t the point. The point was that we needed closure on this issue – because if it just sits and festers, especially as the economy continues to nosedive – people will be looking for reasons to blame and targets to hit. I knew that whoever ended up in the White House in 2010 was going to need as much support from the rank and file as they can possibly get.

But apparently the power brokers in this country like to push every awkward question or inconvenient truth off into the future – until it becomes a problem. This is how we’ve ended up with the albatross of debt around our necks, and now they’ve done it again with Obama’s birth certificate. Oh, well. Our new president has got a failed stimulus, a collapsing economy, diving poll numbers and a feisty military asking uncomfortable questions.

Maybe next time people will think more carefully and ask more questions before they skip to the ballot box with their Kool Aid.

It’s going to be an interesting Fall.[/quote]

I second the thoughts of those who have lamented on this site that it’s become a venue for the tin-foil hat club.

Seriously?

Okay, so this is how it went down: Obama’s mom– and she was 18 when he was born by the way– poor thing, when she was pregnant with him, she didn’t realize she was bearing a future president. That’s why she agreed to travel to Kenya for his birth– it’s not a worry when you’re only carrying someone destined for lesser office. But when he was born, she instantly realized– he’s our future leader! Oh, what a mistake I’ve made, deciding to have him in Kenya! Why, the fact that he’s already a U.S. citizen is of no use to him! He’d only qualify for governor!

So, our heroine (or villain, depending on your political party), being an advanced student of presidential birth requirements, rather than rely on the fact that her infant was already a U.S. citizen by virtue of being born to her, she knew she’d have to commit fraud, and fast. Naturally, rather than do things the legal and easy way– after all, her 3-week old son’s future was at stake!!– that 18-year old took a chance and committed a crime. Immediately. She procured a certificate of live birth, because those Hawaiians, they didn’t care, they just sold it to her. But she had a good reason– she needed to lay a fraudulent groundwork for a possible fraudulent presidency.

If you believe that, well, the California bar really should start including DSM evaluations as part of its eligibility requirements.

[gromit]

[quote=partypup]I’m compelled to post this because of the implications. I think they are potentially huge.

“Obama birth certificate deniers won a small victory in court on Monday. Meanwhile, one such conspiracy theorist refused to deploy to Afghanistan on the grounds that Barack Obama isn’t a legitimate president.

A judge said he would listen to “the merits” of Alan Keyes’ case challenging Obama’s presidency. While a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office said the move was merely procedural, birth conspiracy proponents are encouraged.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/14/stefan-frederick-cook-sol_n_231383.html

I love how an Army Major is now dubbed a “conspiracy theorist”. Hilarious! But notice what they don’t mention: the military actually rescinded the order rather than address the matter. This omission is telling and significant, and we have to reach beyond the Huff Post to get the truth:

“His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.

“We won! We won before we even arrived,” she said with excitement. “It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!”

She continued, “They just said, ‘Order revoked.’ No explanation. No reasons – just revoked.”

“Taitz said she will attend the hearing to amend the temporary restraining order to an injunction because MORE members of the military have joined the cause.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009

Now, I’m curious why the military would rescind orders to a Major (not a colonel or a General, by the way) rather than deal with this issue…? It doesn’t really matter, because now the cat is out of the bag, and it is starting to hiss.

Think about it: Bush was a de facto “selected” (not elected) president, and that fraud had two terms in office. But the difference here is that the military never revoked any deployment orders under Bush because of questions about his illegitimate presidency – even when he was doing whack things like sending troops to war for no reason. This situation now is different, because for whatever reason the military is not willing to simply accept Obama’s legitimacy because he won and he’s sitting in the Oval Office. We’ve never faced a situation like this before. It would appear to me that the situation in the U.S. just became much more dangerous and unpredictable because, with this case, the mask is off.

Ask yourself: what’s to stop tens of thousands of military personnel from obtaining the exact same outcome as Major Stefan Cook? Not much, apparently. And where will that lead? The military either has to (a) deal with the issue (something civilian courts have refused to do because everyone except Obama apparently lacks standing) or (b) risk scattered revolts popping up in their ranks. Very dicey. Oh, and all this as our country is dealing with a collapsing economy and power plays for resources by Russia and China – who actually have more money than we do to continue to fund their military enterprises.

I remember discussing this issue with a colleague last year. He kept insisting that the birth certificate issue should be dropped and that people need to just “get over it” because Obama was going to win, anyway. I told him that wasn’t the point. The point was that we needed closure on this issue – because if it just sits and festers, especially as the economy continues to nosedive – people will be looking for reasons to blame and targets to hit. I knew that whoever ended up in the White House in 2010 was going to need as much support from the rank and file as they can possibly get.

But apparently the power brokers in this country like to push every awkward question or inconvenient truth off into the future – until it becomes a problem. This is how we’ve ended up with the albatross of debt around our necks, and now they’ve done it again with Obama’s birth certificate. Oh, well. Our new president has got a failed stimulus, a collapsing economy, diving poll numbers and a feisty military asking uncomfortable questions.

Maybe next time people will think more carefully and ask more questions before they skip to the ballot box with their Kool Aid.

It’s going to be an interesting Fall.[/quote]

I second the thoughts of those who have lamented on this site that it’s become a venue for the tin-foil hat club.

Seriously?

Okay, so this is how it went down: Obama’s mom– and she was 18 when he was born by the way– poor thing, when she was pregnant with him, she didn’t realize she was bearing a future president. That’s why she agreed to travel to Kenya for his birth– it’s not a worry when you’re only carrying someone destined for lesser office. But when he was born, she instantly realized– he’s our future leader! Oh, what a mistake I’ve made, deciding to have him in Kenya! Why, the fact that he’s already a U.S. citizen is of no use to him! He’d only qualify for governor!

So, our heroine (or villain, depending on your political party), being an advanced student of presidential birth requirements, rather than rely on the fact that her infant was already a U.S. citizen by virtue of being born to her, she knew she’d have to commit fraud, and fast. Naturally, rather than do things the legal and easy way– after all, her 3-week old son’s future was at stake!!– that 18-year old took a chance and committed a crime. Immediately. She procured a certificate of live birth, because those Hawaiians, they didn’t care, they just sold it to her. But she had a good reason– she needed to lay a fraudulent groundwork for a possible fraudulent presidency.

If you believe that, well, the California bar really should start including DSM evaluations as part of its eligibility requirements.

[gromit]

[quote=partypup]I’m compelled to post this because of the implications. I think they are potentially huge.

“Obama birth certificate deniers won a small victory in court on Monday. Meanwhile, one such conspiracy theorist refused to deploy to Afghanistan on the grounds that Barack Obama isn’t a legitimate president.

A judge said he would listen to “the merits” of Alan Keyes’ case challenging Obama’s presidency. While a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office said the move was merely procedural, birth conspiracy proponents are encouraged.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/14/stefan-frederick-cook-sol_n_231383.html

I love how an Army Major is now dubbed a “conspiracy theorist”. Hilarious! But notice what they don’t mention: the military actually rescinded the order rather than address the matter. This omission is telling and significant, and we have to reach beyond the Huff Post to get the truth:

“His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.

“We won! We won before we even arrived,” she said with excitement. “It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!”

She continued, “They just said, ‘Order revoked.’ No explanation. No reasons – just revoked.”

“Taitz said she will attend the hearing to amend the temporary restraining order to an injunction because MORE members of the military have joined the cause.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009

Now, I’m curious why the military would rescind orders to a Major (not a colonel or a General, by the way) rather than deal with this issue…? It doesn’t really matter, because now the cat is out of the bag, and it is starting to hiss.

Think about it: Bush was a de facto “selected” (not elected) president, and that fraud had two terms in office. But the difference here is that the military never revoked any deployment orders under Bush because of questions about his illegitimate presidency – even when he was doing whack things like sending troops to war for no reason. This situation now is different, because for whatever reason the military is not willing to simply accept Obama’s legitimacy because he won and he’s sitting in the Oval Office. We’ve never faced a situation like this before. It would appear to me that the situation in the U.S. just became much more dangerous and unpredictable because, with this case, the mask is off.

Ask yourself: what’s to stop tens of thousands of military personnel from obtaining the exact same outcome as Major Stefan Cook? Not much, apparently. And where will that lead? The military either has to (a) deal with the issue (something civilian courts have refused to do because everyone except Obama apparently lacks standing) or (b) risk scattered revolts popping up in their ranks. Very dicey. Oh, and all this as our country is dealing with a collapsing economy and power plays for resources by Russia and China – who actually have more money than we do to continue to fund their military enterprises.

I remember discussing this issue with a colleague last year. He kept insisting that the birth certificate issue should be dropped and that people need to just “get over it” because Obama was going to win, anyway. I told him that wasn’t the point. The point was that we needed closure on this issue – because if it just sits and festers, especially as the economy continues to nosedive – people will be looking for reasons to blame and targets to hit. I knew that whoever ended up in the White House in 2010 was going to need as much support from the rank and file as they can possibly get.

But apparently the power brokers in this country like to push every awkward question or inconvenient truth off into the future – until it becomes a problem. This is how we’ve ended up with the albatross of debt around our necks, and now they’ve done it again with Obama’s birth certificate. Oh, well. Our new president has got a failed stimulus, a collapsing economy, diving poll numbers and a feisty military asking uncomfortable questions.

Maybe next time people will think more carefully and ask more questions before they skip to the ballot box with their Kool Aid.

It’s going to be an interesting Fall.[/quote]

I second the thoughts of those who have lamented on this site that it’s become a venue for the tin-foil hat club.

Seriously?

Okay, so this is how it went down: Obama’s mom– and she was 18 when he was born by the way– poor thing, when she was pregnant with him, she didn’t realize she was bearing a future president. That’s why she agreed to travel to Kenya for his birth– it’s not a worry when you’re only carrying someone destined for lesser office. But when he was born, she instantly realized– he’s our future leader! Oh, what a mistake I’ve made, deciding to have him in Kenya! Why, the fact that he’s already a U.S. citizen is of no use to him! He’d only qualify for governor!

So, our heroine (or villain, depending on your political party), being an advanced student of presidential birth requirements, rather than rely on the fact that her infant was already a U.S. citizen by virtue of being born to her, she knew she’d have to commit fraud, and fast. Naturally, rather than do things the legal and easy way– after all, her 3-week old son’s future was at stake!!– that 18-year old took a chance and committed a crime. Immediately. She procured a certificate of live birth, because those Hawaiians, they didn’t care, they just sold it to her. But she had a good reason– she needed to lay a fraudulent groundwork for a possible fraudulent presidency.

If you believe that, well, the California bar really should start including DSM evaluations as part of its eligibility requirements.

[gromit]

[quote=partypup]I’m compelled to post this because of the implications. I think they are potentially huge.

“Obama birth certificate deniers won a small victory in court on Monday. Meanwhile, one such conspiracy theorist refused to deploy to Afghanistan on the grounds that Barack Obama isn’t a legitimate president.

A judge said he would listen to “the merits” of Alan Keyes’ case challenging Obama’s presidency. While a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office said the move was merely procedural, birth conspiracy proponents are encouraged.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/14/stefan-frederick-cook-sol_n_231383.html

I love how an Army Major is now dubbed a “conspiracy theorist”. Hilarious! But notice what they don’t mention: the military actually rescinded the order rather than address the matter. This omission is telling and significant, and we have to reach beyond the Huff Post to get the truth:

“His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.

“We won! We won before we even arrived,” she said with excitement. “It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!”

She continued, “They just said, ‘Order revoked.’ No explanation. No reasons – just revoked.”

“Taitz said she will attend the hearing to amend the temporary restraining order to an injunction because MORE members of the military have joined the cause.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009

Now, I’m curious why the military would rescind orders to a Major (not a colonel or a General, by the way) rather than deal with this issue…? It doesn’t really matter, because now the cat is out of the bag, and it is starting to hiss.

Think about it: Bush was a de facto “selected” (not elected) president, and that fraud had two terms in office. But the difference here is that the military never revoked any deployment orders under Bush because of questions about his illegitimate presidency – even when he was doing whack things like sending troops to war for no reason. This situation now is different, because for whatever reason the military is not willing to simply accept Obama’s legitimacy because he won and he’s sitting in the Oval Office. We’ve never faced a situation like this before. It would appear to me that the situation in the U.S. just became much more dangerous and unpredictable because, with this case, the mask is off.

Ask yourself: what’s to stop tens of thousands of military personnel from obtaining the exact same outcome as Major Stefan Cook? Not much, apparently. And where will that lead? The military either has to (a) deal with the issue (something civilian courts have refused to do because everyone except Obama apparently lacks standing) or (b) risk scattered revolts popping up in their ranks. Very dicey. Oh, and all this as our country is dealing with a collapsing economy and power plays for resources by Russia and China – who actually have more money than we do to continue to fund their military enterprises.

I remember discussing this issue with a colleague last year. He kept insisting that the birth certificate issue should be dropped and that people need to just “get over it” because Obama was going to win, anyway. I told him that wasn’t the point. The point was that we needed closure on this issue – because if it just sits and festers, especially as the economy continues to nosedive – people will be looking for reasons to blame and targets to hit. I knew that whoever ended up in the White House in 2010 was going to need as much support from the rank and file as they can possibly get.

But apparently the power brokers in this country like to push every awkward question or inconvenient truth off into the future – until it becomes a problem. This is how we’ve ended up with the albatross of debt around our necks, and now they’ve done it again with Obama’s birth certificate. Oh, well. Our new president has got a failed stimulus, a collapsing economy, diving poll numbers and a feisty military asking uncomfortable questions.

Maybe next time people will think more carefully and ask more questions before they skip to the ballot box with their Kool Aid.

It’s going to be an interesting Fall.[/quote]

I second the thoughts of those who have lamented on this site that it’s become a venue for the tin-foil hat club.

Seriously?

Okay, so this is how it went down: Obama’s mom– and she was 18 when he was born by the way– poor thing, when she was pregnant with him, she didn’t realize she was bearing a future president. That’s why she agreed to travel to Kenya for his birth– it’s not a worry when you’re only carrying someone destined for lesser office. But when he was born, she instantly realized– he’s our future leader! Oh, what a mistake I’ve made, deciding to have him in Kenya! Why, the fact that he’s already a U.S. citizen is of no use to him! He’d only qualify for governor!

So, our heroine (or villain, depending on your political party), being an advanced student of presidential birth requirements, rather than rely on the fact that her infant was already a U.S. citizen by virtue of being born to her, she knew she’d have to commit fraud, and fast. Naturally, rather than do things the legal and easy way– after all, her 3-week old son’s future was at stake!!– that 18-year old took a chance and committed a crime. Immediately. She procured a certificate of live birth, because those Hawaiians, they didn’t care, they just sold it to her. But she had a good reason– she needed to lay a fraudulent groundwork for a possible fraudulent presidency.

If you believe that, well, the California bar really should start including DSM evaluations as part of its eligibility requirements.

[gromit]

[quote=partypup]I’m compelled to post this because of the implications. I think they are potentially huge.

“Obama birth certificate deniers won a small victory in court on Monday. Meanwhile, one such conspiracy theorist refused to deploy to Afghanistan on the grounds that Barack Obama isn’t a legitimate president.

A judge said he would listen to “the merits” of Alan Keyes’ case challenging Obama’s presidency. While a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office said the move was merely procedural, birth conspiracy proponents are encouraged.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/14/stefan-frederick-cook-sol_n_231383.html

I love how an Army Major is now dubbed a “conspiracy theorist”. Hilarious! But notice what they don’t mention: the military actually rescinded the order rather than address the matter. This omission is telling and significant, and we have to reach beyond the Huff Post to get the truth:

“His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.

“We won! We won before we even arrived,” she said with excitement. “It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!”

She continued, “They just said, ‘Order revoked.’ No explanation. No reasons – just revoked.”

“Taitz said she will attend the hearing to amend the temporary restraining order to an injunction because MORE members of the military have joined the cause.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009

Now, I’m curious why the military would rescind orders to a Major (not a colonel or a General, by the way) rather than deal with this issue…? It doesn’t really matter, because now the cat is out of the bag, and it is starting to hiss.

Think about it: Bush was a de facto “selected” (not elected) president, and that fraud had two terms in office. But the difference here is that the military never revoked any deployment orders under Bush because of questions about his illegitimate presidency – even when he was doing whack things like sending troops to war for no reason. This situation now is different, because for whatever reason the military is not willing to simply accept Obama’s legitimacy because he won and he’s sitting in the Oval Office. We’ve never faced a situation like this before. It would appear to me that the situation in the U.S. just became much more dangerous and unpredictable because, with this case, the mask is off.

Ask yourself: what’s to stop tens of thousands of military personnel from obtaining the exact same outcome as Major Stefan Cook? Not much, apparently. And where will that lead? The military either has to (a) deal with the issue (something civilian courts have refused to do because everyone except Obama apparently lacks standing) or (b) risk scattered revolts popping up in their ranks. Very dicey. Oh, and all this as our country is dealing with a collapsing economy and power plays for resources by Russia and China – who actually have more money than we do to continue to fund their military enterprises.

I remember discussing this issue with a colleague last year. He kept insisting that the birth certificate issue should be dropped and that people need to just “get over it” because Obama was going to win, anyway. I told him that wasn’t the point. The point was that we needed closure on this issue – because if it just sits and festers, especially as the economy continues to nosedive – people will be looking for reasons to blame and targets to hit. I knew that whoever ended up in the White House in 2010 was going to need as much support from the rank and file as they can possibly get.

But apparently the power brokers in this country like to push every awkward question or inconvenient truth off into the future – until it becomes a problem. This is how we’ve ended up with the albatross of debt around our necks, and now they’ve done it again with Obama’s birth certificate. Oh, well. Our new president has got a failed stimulus, a collapsing economy, diving poll numbers and a feisty military asking uncomfortable questions.

Maybe next time people will think more carefully and ask more questions before they skip to the ballot box with their Kool Aid.

It’s going to be an interesting Fall.[/quote]

I second the thoughts of those who have lamented on this site that it’s become a venue for the tin-foil hat club.

Seriously?

Okay, so this is how it went down: Obama’s mom– and she was 18 when he was born by the way– poor thing, when she was pregnant with him, she didn’t realize she was bearing a future president. That’s why she agreed to travel to Kenya for his birth– it’s not a worry when you’re only carrying someone destined for lesser office. But when he was born, she instantly realized– he’s our future leader! Oh, what a mistake I’ve made, deciding to have him in Kenya! Why, the fact that he’s already a U.S. citizen is of no use to him! He’d only qualify for governor!

So, our heroine (or villain, depending on your political party), being an advanced student of presidential birth requirements, rather than rely on the fact that her infant was already a U.S. citizen by virtue of being born to her, she knew she’d have to commit fraud, and fast. Naturally, rather than do things the legal and easy way– after all, her 3-week old son’s future was at stake!!– that 18-year old took a chance and committed a crime. Immediately. She procured a certificate of live birth, because those Hawaiians, they didn’t care, they just sold it to her. But she had a good reason– she needed to lay a fraudulent groundwork for a possible fraudulent presidency.

If you believe that, well, the California bar really should start including DSM evaluations as part of its eligibility requirements.

[patb]

[quote=partypup][quote=patb][quote=Casca]

Obama’s Kenyan relatives claim he was born in Kenya, and that his mother flew home weeks after his birth, and obtained his certificate of live birth in Hawaii.

[/quote]

even if this were true, so what?

Obama’s US Citizenship comes via the Blood of his mother.

As a legal citizen, he is entitled to serve as president.[/quote]

That’s incorrect. Do some research on the archived threads. The issue is much more complicated because of laws in existence at the time (1961) governing the determination of naturalized citizens.

Short answer: having a natural born mother isn’t sufficient if you were born on foreign soil in 1961. It may be a silly law, but someone needs to come clean and address it. Perhaps now that the Dems control Congress Obama can amend the Constitution – while he’s going through the trouble of dismantling our capitalist foundations. Kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. Then Schwarzenegger can be president. Yippee!!![/quote]

BalderDash, HorseFeathers and Flivets.

Having a US Citizen as your parent transfers citizenship by birth, it’s
how all those war brides and such over in Germany, Japan, Korea
were being brought to the US. They’d hook up with some GI,
have a kid or two and come to the US as married dependents with the kids as US Citizens.

[patb]

[quote=partypup][quote=patb][quote=Casca]

Obama’s Kenyan relatives claim he was born in Kenya, and that his mother flew home weeks after his birth, and obtained his certificate of live birth in Hawaii.

[/quote]

even if this were true, so what?

Obama’s US Citizenship comes via the Blood of his mother.

As a legal citizen, he is entitled to serve as president.[/quote]

That’s incorrect. Do some research on the archived threads. The issue is much more complicated because of laws in existence at the time (1961) governing the determination of naturalized citizens.

Short answer: having a natural born mother isn’t sufficient if you were born on foreign soil in 1961. It may be a silly law, but someone needs to come clean and address it. Perhaps now that the Dems control Congress Obama can amend the Constitution – while he’s going through the trouble of dismantling our capitalist foundations. Kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. Then Schwarzenegger can be president. Yippee!!![/quote]

BalderDash, HorseFeathers and Flivets.

Having a US Citizen as your parent transfers citizenship by birth, it’s
how all those war brides and such over in Germany, Japan, Korea
were being brought to the US. They’d hook up with some GI,
have a kid or two and come to the US as married dependents with the kids as US Citizens.

[patb]

[quote=partypup][quote=patb][quote=Casca]

Obama’s Kenyan relatives claim he was born in Kenya, and that his mother flew home weeks after his birth, and obtained his certificate of live birth in Hawaii.

[/quote]

even if this were true, so what?

Obama’s US Citizenship comes via the Blood of his mother.

As a legal citizen, he is entitled to serve as president.[/quote]

That’s incorrect. Do some research on the archived threads. The issue is much more complicated because of laws in existence at the time (1961) governing the determination of naturalized citizens.

Short answer: having a natural born mother isn’t sufficient if you were born on foreign soil in 1961. It may be a silly law, but someone needs to come clean and address it. Perhaps now that the Dems control Congress Obama can amend the Constitution – while he’s going through the trouble of dismantling our capitalist foundations. Kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. Then Schwarzenegger can be president. Yippee!!![/quote]

BalderDash, HorseFeathers and Flivets.

Having a US Citizen as your parent transfers citizenship by birth, it’s
how all those war brides and such over in Germany, Japan, Korea
were being brought to the US. They’d hook up with some GI,
have a kid or two and come to the US as married dependents with the kids as US Citizens.

[patb]

[quote=partypup][quote=patb][quote=Casca]

Obama’s Kenyan relatives claim he was born in Kenya, and that his mother flew home weeks after his birth, and obtained his certificate of live birth in Hawaii.

[/quote]

even if this were true, so what?

Obama’s US Citizenship comes via the Blood of his mother.

As a legal citizen, he is entitled to serve as president.[/quote]

That’s incorrect. Do some research on the archived threads. The issue is much more complicated because of laws in existence at the time (1961) governing the determination of naturalized citizens.

Short answer: having a natural born mother isn’t sufficient if you were born on foreign soil in 1961. It may be a silly law, but someone needs to come clean and address it. Perhaps now that the Dems control Congress Obama can amend the Constitution – while he’s going through the trouble of dismantling our capitalist foundations. Kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. Then Schwarzenegger can be president. Yippee!!![/quote]

BalderDash, HorseFeathers and Flivets.

Having a US Citizen as your parent transfers citizenship by birth, it’s
how all those war brides and such over in Germany, Japan, Korea
were being brought to the US. They’d hook up with some GI,
have a kid or two and come to the US as married dependents with the kids as US Citizens.

[patb]

[quote=partypup][quote=patb][quote=Casca]

Obama’s Kenyan relatives claim he was born in Kenya, and that his mother flew home weeks after his birth, and obtained his certificate of live birth in Hawaii.

[/quote]

even if this were true, so what?

Obama’s US Citizenship comes via the Blood of his mother.

As a legal citizen, he is entitled to serve as president.[/quote]

That’s incorrect. Do some research on the archived threads. The issue is much more complicated because of laws in existence at the time (1961) governing the determination of naturalized citizens.

Short answer: having a natural born mother isn’t sufficient if you were born on foreign soil in 1961. It may be a silly law, but someone needs to come clean and address it. Perhaps now that the Dems control Congress Obama can amend the Constitution – while he’s going through the trouble of dismantling our capitalist foundations. Kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. Then Schwarzenegger can be president. Yippee!!![/quote]

BalderDash, HorseFeathers and Flivets.

Having a US Citizen as your parent transfers citizenship by birth, it’s
how all those war brides and such over in Germany, Japan, Korea
were being brought to the US. They’d hook up with some GI,
have a kid or two and come to the US as married dependents with the kids as US Citizens.

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Being former Army myself, the situation plays out somewhat differently if an officer is RA, versus Army Reserve or National Guard. When I was in, there were even differences in Army Reserve status (i.e. IRR or Individual Ready Reserve, which was an awful lot like the National Guard, only you didn’t even muster out once a month but were on this weird “standby” status. IRR was definitely a product of the Cold War, in that IRR members would probably only get called up if a big war broke out with the Russkies).
“.[/quote]

Bush was calling up lots of IRR as IMA’s to the AGR, if you understood this.

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Being former Army myself, the situation plays out somewhat differently if an officer is RA, versus Army Reserve or National Guard. When I was in, there were even differences in Army Reserve status (i.e. IRR or Individual Ready Reserve, which was an awful lot like the National Guard, only you didn’t even muster out once a month but were on this weird “standby” status. IRR was definitely a product of the Cold War, in that IRR members would probably only get called up if a big war broke out with the Russkies).
“.[/quote]

Bush was calling up lots of IRR as IMA’s to the AGR, if you understood this.

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Being former Army myself, the situation plays out somewhat differently if an officer is RA, versus Army Reserve or National Guard. When I was in, there were even differences in Army Reserve status (i.e. IRR or Individual Ready Reserve, which was an awful lot like the National Guard, only you didn’t even muster out once a month but were on this weird “standby” status. IRR was definitely a product of the Cold War, in that IRR members would probably only get called up if a big war broke out with the Russkies).
“.[/quote]

Bush was calling up lots of IRR as IMA’s to the AGR, if you understood this.

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Being former Army myself, the situation plays out somewhat differently if an officer is RA, versus Army Reserve or National Guard. When I was in, there were even differences in Army Reserve status (i.e. IRR or Individual Ready Reserve, which was an awful lot like the National Guard, only you didn’t even muster out once a month but were on this weird “standby” status. IRR was definitely a product of the Cold War, in that IRR members would probably only get called up if a big war broke out with the Russkies).
“.[/quote]

Bush was calling up lots of IRR as IMA’s to the AGR, if you understood this.

[Author]

Posts