Obama and the Military’s Moral Dilemma By Robert Klein Engler | Published 06/18/2009

Obama and the Military’s Moral Dilemma

By Robert Klein Engler | Published  06/18/2009

There is now reasonable doubt that Mr. Obama meets the U.S. Constitution’s requirement of “natural born” citizenship.  This means that there is also reasonable doubt that he is qualified to be President of the United Sates and commander in chief.

The Kenyan citizenship of his father, the age of his mother, the lack of a birth certificate, the ambiguous nature of a Certification of Live Birth, the possible forgery of birth documents, the inability of the press to view passport and college records, and even his own statements, all add to the uncertainty many have about Mr. Obama’s qualifications to be President.

Even the often quoted “proof” by Janice Okubo only adds more gasoline to the fire of doubt. She said:  “Therefore, I as director of health for the State of Hawaii, along with the registrar of vital statistics …have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record…”  Notice that she does not say that this document proves that Mr. Obama was BORN in “Hawaii.”

Until proof of U.S. citizenship is presented beyond a reasonable doubt, it is reasonable to say that Mr. Obama is probably a usurper to the office of President.  Yet, for many Americans, this is irrelevant.  They believe that holding the office is proof that one is qualified for the office.

Even if the Supreme Court declared upon the examination of the evidence that Obama does not meet the Constitution’s qualifications to be President, what can be done?  The chief justice of the court is not going to the Oval Office with a broom and sweep it clean.

The same can be said for many other American institutions.  The people have voted.  The man is popular.  What Constitution?  We prefer the thrill up our leg.  These are some of the arguments put forward to support the current regime.

The Military and the Constitution

There is one American institution, however, that has a moral responsibility to support the U.S. Constitution.  That institution is the U.S. military.  The Constitution is the bedrock upon which military order and discipline is founded.

Colonel Anthony E. Hartle claims in his book ”Moral Issues in Military Decision Making,” that “When military members pledge to the support and defense of the Constitution, they commit themselves, by logical extension, to the principles and values that form the basis of its provisions.”

In their paper, ”Divided Loyalties: Civil-Military Relations at Risk,” DiSilverio and Laushine write: “The commissioning of military officers is another source of legal support for the Constitution as the primary legitimate authority.”

“The commission from the Commander-in-Chief states, ‘this officer is to observe and follow such orders and directions, from time to time, as may be given by me, or by the future President of the United States of America.'”

DiSilverio and Laushine continue: “The requirement to follow orders also applies to those officers appointed over the subject officer.  As Anthony Hartle contends, the fundamental law of the United States is the Constitution, and the commission confirms the supremacy of the Constitution…”

“Hartle goes on to say that if a President were to issue an unlawful order, military officers would be obligated to disobey it, and that this obligation derives its moral basis in the commissioning oath.”  This same obligation to disobey also holds against an order issued by an unlawful or usurper President.

Add to this, all entering the U.S. military take the following oath: “I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States…”

The writer of the ”Natural Born Presidency Blog” reminds us that, “Military personnel are subject to a world unlike anything a CIVILIAN would ever understand.  It is an anachronistic, rule oriented, self contained society which doesn’t react amiably when confronted with a breakdown of good order and discipline.”

Then he cautions us. “It should be noted…a significant gray area exists regarding whether an ineligible President can render a ‘lawful order.’  There exists a strong probability the court will reinterpret the Constitution to allow Mr. Obama to hold the office.  If such occurs, the military, as a WHOLE, will nod affirmative…”

If a person is clearly not a natural born citizen, then it is hard to imagine how Congress or the Supreme Court can make him one.  Furthermore, members of the U.S. military have a moral obligation NOT to follow his orders.  As Hartle states, “this obligation derives its moral basis in the commissioning oath.”

If Obama is not qualified to be President from the start, then he simply is not President.  The only gray area is in the hearts of his supporters.  He cannot even resign.  He can only be removed.

To complicate matters even further, The Uniform Code of Military Justice may be invoked to get at the truth.  Writing in the Huffington Post, Martin Lewis wanted to use this Code to remove George W. Bush from office.  If he is right, we can turn the tables and use his argument against Mr. Obama.

Lewis writes, “Article 7 of the Uniform Code Of Military Justice specifically says…’Any person authorized under regulations governing the armed forces to apprehend persons subject to this Code may do so upon reasonable belief that an offense has been committed and that the person apprehended committed it.'”

Removing Obama from office, in Lewis’ words, “would not be an action to undertake lightly…However, given the current imperilment of U.S. troops…you have a greater responsibility to your nation, your code of honor, and to the U.S. Constitution.”

The Constitution is a document with some flexibility.  However, the military is an institution that abhors flexibility.  Discipline, order, and the chain of command are not flexible.  Neither is the line between life and death, honor, and victory.

The Chicago Connection

Barack Obama claims to be a Chicagoan.  He is no more a native Chicagoan than Sammy Sosa, who allegedly took illegal performance-enhancing drugs to play baseball.  In spite of this, there is a Chicago connection to the moral issues raised by Obama’s uncertain natural born status.

In 1815 the land that was to become Chicago was Federal Territory.  Fort Dearborn, located by what is now Michigan Avenue and the Chicago River, was commanded by Captain Heald.  Captain Heald was ordered to evacuate the fort by General Hull, who commanded Fort Detroit.

What documents we have about Chicago’s early history tell us that Lieutenant Helm and Captain Wells, who came up from Fort Wayne, tried to discourage the evacuation.  Some historians believe that the order itself was vague and allowed for mitigating circumstances.

It seems that there were enough supplies at the fort to outlast a siege.  The native forces outnumbered the U.S. forces almost ten to one.  What to do?  Question a vague order and save your command, or have a drink and press forward to Ft. Wayne?

Opinions differ as to the character of Captain Heald.  Some argue that he was a conservative yet inept a career officer.  Regardless of his character, he chose to follow orders, and evacuated the fort on the morning of August 15, 1812.

The result of the evacuation was the Fort Dearborn Massacre.  It occurred on the shore of Lake Michigan about a mile and a half from the fort.

The moral dilemma faced by these Ft. Dearborn officers, at what was then a relatively unknown outpost, is no different from the moral dilemma faced by U.S. military officers today.  In light of the reasonable doubts concerning Obama’s status as Commander-in-Chief, what to do?

Captain Heald and Lieutenant Helm survived the massacre, but Captain Wells did not.  Nor did Ensign Rohan, a young officer stationed at Ft. Dearborn.  Ensign Rohan was the first graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point to die in battle.

Duty, Honor, Country

The motto of the U.S. Military Academy is “Duty, Honor, Country.”  These words are imbedded in the academy’s coat of arms.  It is the duty of an officer to be a moral agent and to support the Constitution. Honor and country mean nothing if duty is ignored.

The crisis in military discipline and order created by the doubts that swirl around Barack Obama’s status as a natural born citizen can be easily resolved.  A simple birth certificate showing birth in Hawaii, along with college and passport documents released to the public, is all it takes.

Up to now, Obama has done little to dispel once and for all the reasonable doubts about his status.  He has created, instead, the greatest “moral issue in military decision making” in the country’s history.

Given doubts about Obama’s natural born citizen status, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have a moral duty to investigate Obama’s qualifications to be President.  They must then report their findings to those under their command and the American people.

Anything less looks like a violation of their oath and a disregard for the Constitution they swore to defend.  If we expect a soldier to die for the Constitution, then he must expect his officers to live by the Constitution.

This is not an issue of legitimate succession to office of Commander-in-Chief, but an issue of usurpation.  The moral duty here for military officers is clear: Demand proof, or serve without honor, or resign.

Citizens and servicemen alike should be mindful that once the Constitution is made void, the United States disappears.  Who wants to fight and die for nothing?  Ensign Rohan did not die for nothing.

Advertisements

On the surface, the following article is not that big of a deal.  However, the big picture point here is that the over-the-top Political Correctness has forced this situation instead of allowing the market to willfully adapt to the demands of the clientele.   Also keep the following in mind as you read that there are an estimated 2 million Muslims in the UK, a country of 60 million inhabitants.  This represents roughly 3% of the total population.

—–

Domino’s pizza store takes pork off the menu to go ‘halal-only’

By Daily Mail Reporter
The Daily Mail (UK)
Last updated at 1:58 PM on 24th June 2009

Residents have threatened to boycott a Domino’s Pizza – after it took pork off its menu and now only offers halal food.

Customers in Blackburn are angry that the managers of the store – which is located in a heavily populated Asian area – made the move in a bid to attract more Muslim clients.

Toppings now include halal pepperoni, halal spicy beef sausage, and customers wanting a Hawaiian pizza traditionally topped with ham will be offered the new version which features halal cured turkey along with pineapple and mushrooms.

The takeaway in the Roe Lee area of the town has secured accreditation from the Halal Food Authority (HFA) in a bid to widen its appeal to nearby Asian residents.

Franchisee of the Blackburn store, Slawomir Szulc, said the move towards halal pizzas was vital if the takeaway was going to have a viable future.

He said: ‘I am delighted to be opening a 100 per cent halal Domino’s Pizza store to better serve the needs of local residents.

‘The store originally opened in October 2005 and has never performed particularly well.

‘We realised that we needed to widen our appeal and target the local Muslim community.

‘We tried adding in some additional pork-free toppings, but this still did not stimulate the business, potentially forcing us to close permanently.

‘But, after further consideration, we chose to go all the way and reopen as a 100 per cent halal store.’

But some residents have slammed the move on the grounds that they want to eat pork dishes and others saying they think that the halal slaughter method is cruel.

Mike Costa from Blackburn said: ‘They have now set their stall out to cater for Muslim customers. They won’t get my trade. That’s their business risk though so good luck to them.’

Another resident said: ‘This place has just lost our custom. Every week we used to order from there for a youth club, but after getting their ‘new’ menu it looks like Pizza Hut is now our place to go.’

Another fan said: ‘How long before K.F.C, Mcdonalds and Burger King start to alter their menus to suit.’

But the move has been backed by others.

One said: ‘I’m English, and I can assure you halal meat tastes much better. I always buy halal meat now.’

Domino’s has worked closely with the HFA, the UK’s leading accreditation authority for halal food, which has examined every stage of the pizza-making process.

The HFA also explores where ingredients are sourced from to how they are stored and prepared, ensuring Domino’s meets its strict criteria.

Masood Khawaja, president of the HFA, added: ‘We have been delighted to work with Domino’s to create this halal store.

‘Our team has been extremely impressed by the company’s commitment to halal.’

For meat to be deemed Halal, it must meet certain conditions. These include that the animal should be killed by having its throat cut and any flowing blood of the carcase should be completely drained.

A Domino’s in Birmingham became the first in the country to offer only halal food earlier this year and also caused anger among some locals.

Exiled Iranian Opposition Group Rallies in Paris in Support of Tehran Protests – washingtonpost.com

NOTE:  “MG Paul Vallely, Chairman of Stand Up America, is a founding member of the
Iran Policy Committee and has attended the Paris rally for the Iranian
Opposition for the past four years.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/20/AR2009062001
347.html?hpid=topnews

A MUST Read!! From our Friends At Stand Up America (http://standupamericaus.com)

New to our growing group of like-minded friends is Stand Up America, US Project and its Chairman Major General Paul E. Vallely, US Army (ret).

http://standupamericaus.com

Biography

Paul E. Vallely, Major General, US Army (ret) was born in DuBois, Pa. He retired in 1992 from the US Army as Deputy Commanding General, US Army, Pacific in Honolulu, Hawaii. General Vallely graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point and was commissioned in the Army in 1961 serving a distinguishing career of 32 years in the Army. He served in many overseas theaters to include Europe and the Pacific Rim Countries as well as two combat tours in Vietnam. He has served on US security assistance missions on civilian-military relations to Europe, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Indonesia and Central America with in-country experience in Indonesia, Columbia, El Salvador, Panama, Honduras and Guatemala.

General Vallely is a graduate of the Infantry School, Ranger and Airborne Schools, Jumpmaster School, the Command and General Staff School, The Industrial College of the Armed Forces and the Army War College. His combat service in Vietnam included positions as infantry company commander, intelligence officer, operations officer, military advisor and aide-de-camp. He has over fifteen (15) years experience in Special Operations, Psychological and Civil-Military Operations.

He has served as a consultant to the Commanding General of the Special Operations Command as well as the DOD Anti-Drug and Counter-Terrorist Task Forces. He also designed and developed the Host-Nation Support Program in the Pacific for DOD and the State Department. He has in-country security assistance – experience in Israel, Iraq, Kuwait, El Salvador, Columbia and Indonesia in the development of civil-military relations interfacing with senior level military and civilian leadership.

General Vallely has been a military analyst on television and radio for over six years. He is also a guest lecturer on National Security matters and the Global War against Radical Islam. He co-authored the books “ Endgame – Blueprint for Victory for Winning the War on Terror”, “Baghdad Ablaze”, and “Warfooting”. He is a member of the Advisory Council of the Iran Policy Committee. Currently, he is the Chairman of the “Stand Up America Project”.

He and his wife, Marian, are the co-trustees of the Scott Vallely Soldier’s Memorial Fund and reside in Montana.

Census 2010, Will Missouri Lose Out – Again? © John R. Stoeffler

Reprinted with permission from John R. Stoeffler

In 1980 Missouri lost a representative in Congress leaving us with nine. Preliminary estimates point to the distinct possibility that following the 2010 census Missouri will lose yet another seat in the House of Representatives. What is going on?  This year the Census Bureau’s “long form” will be replaced by what is called the “American Community Survey.” Unlike the Bureau’s long form the Community Survey will be randomly mailed to three million households each year for ten years. Among the 47 questions asked is individual question number 8: “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”  As with the old long form the ACS questionnaire will only ask 16 percent of those residing in this country if they are U.S. citizens.

Another change will find every household being mailed the Census Bureau’s “short form.” This form asks ten questions including the number of people residing at that residence, the race of the individual completing the form, and that individual’s sex. What remains unchanged is that the questionnaire doesn’t ask if the individual completing the form and those residing with him or her are U.S. citizens. Bottom line, 84 percent of those residing in the U.S. will never be asked about their citizenship status, a mistake that has political repercussions not only for Missouri but other states as well.

The Constitution requires a census be taken every ten years to obtain a count of “persons” in each state for the purposes of “apportioning”, that is determining, the number of political representatives each state shall have in the U.S. House of Representatives. This requirement was included in the Constitution by the Founders to insure equality of political representation.

The manner in which the Commerce Department’s Bureau of the Census interprets the “Census Clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment is cause for concern in that political representation of Citizens is being distorted by including non-citizens in the census count and using those numbers for reapportionment.  Adherence to this policy enhances the unmistakable probability that representatives in the United States House will continue to be elected to office from areas with fast growing populations of non-citizens thereby diluting the political clout of Americans.

What should be done?

First, Missouri’s congressional delegation needs to recognize that the Constitution neither requires nor prohibits the counting of aliens.

Second, they must acknowledge that while current policy is based on the position that the “Census Clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment requires all persons whose “usual residence” is in a state be included, neither “resident” nor “residence” appears in the constitutional language.

Third, members of Missouri’s congressional delegation must recognize and point out to their colleagues in Congress that the final word on how the census shall be conducted lies with Congress, such authority being provided for in the Constitution. 3.

Fourth, in order to protect the political rights of citizens Congress needs to instruct the Bureau of the Census that henceforth for the purpose of determining the number and distribution of elected representatives only Citizens shall be counted. Counted, not estimated.

If Congress were to initiate a change in census policy to count only those who are citizens for the purpose of reapportionment you can bet the ranch someone or some group would file a challenge in federal court. Undoubtedly, plaintiffs would assert that such a change would deny non-citizens “due process,” but such a charge would be without merit.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t lead to the conclusion that all aliens are entitled to the advantages of citizenship. For example, they can’t vote 4. or hold elective office. 5. If a change of policy were ordered by Congress that forbade counting non-citizens for the purpose of determining political representation it would in no way disenfranchise any individual or group of persons. Nor would such a change diminish any protection to which they are entitled as guests of the citizens and government of the United States. 6.

As I see it, the current method of apportioning representatives in Congress is, to be charitable, disgraceful as it discriminates not only against every Missourian but every American.

How the 2010 Census will be conducted needs the immediate attention of Congress. Two years ago I raised this issue with Senator Bond, then Senator Talent and Congressman Akin. Regrettably, the silence was deafening. This is an issue too important to Missouri to wait another day.

END

Footnotes:

1.  Testimony of John Keane, Hearing on Enumeration of Undocumented Aliens in the Decennial Census before the Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation, and Government Processes of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs, 99th Congress, 13 (1985)
2.  Charles Wood, “Losing Control of America’s Future,” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 22, No. 2 (1999) Ref. FN 13, Remaking the Political       Landscape – How Immigration Redistributes Seats in the House, (Backgrounder No. 2-98, Center for Immigration Studies, Washington, D.C. 1998)
3.  See Fourteenth Amendment, Sec. 2 and 5
4.  U.S. Constitution, Amendment XV, Sec. 1.; Amendment XIX; Amendment XXVI, Sec. 1.
5.  U.S. Constitution, Article I, Sec. 2 ; Article II, Sec. 1.
6.  U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV.

President Obama, READ Lincoln’s Words!

So I said to him, "Barack, I know Abe Lincoln, and you are no Abe Lincoln."

So I said to him, "Barack, I know Abe Lincoln, and you are no Abe Lincoln."

“Property is the fruit of labor…property is desirable…is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.”
…. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, “Reply to New York Workingmen’s Democratic Republican Association” (March 21, 1864), pp. 259-260.

“We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name – liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names – liberty and tyranny.”
…. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, “Address at Sanitary Fair, Baltimore, Maryland” (April 18, 1864), p. 301-302.

The following quotes were published in 1942 by William J. H. Boetcker, a Presbyterian minister.  He released a pamphlet titled Lincoln On Limitations, which did include a Lincoln quote, but also added 10 statements written by Boetcker himself.

1.  You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2.  You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong
3.  You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
4.  You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
5.  You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence.
6.  You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
7.  You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
8.  You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
9.  You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
10. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.

David Limbaugh at the Conservative Heartland Leadership Con