Exposing Obama & Stimulus Counterpunch!

My concern for brave military officers like 1st Lt. Easterling, and others who have joined as Plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Resident Obama, have now subsided after reading On The Right Side Of Life: Comparing Military Enlisted and Officer Oaths

Excerpt:

There is a huge difference between the military enlisted oath and the officer oath of office. The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows [per this link]:

Enlisted Oath

“I, _____, 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 and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Officer Oath -

“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

As you can see, the officer does not swear to obey the orders of the President. We only have an obligation to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic (for example, a Presidential Usurper).

Our forefathers were so brilliant to foresee a situation like we find ourselves in now. The officer oath is a safeguard to protect the Constitution against a corrupt elected government. Officers only have an obligation to defend the Constitution. Military officers have a lot of legal clout when it comes to Constitutional matters. The officer oath does not mention following the UCMJ laws as does the enlisted oath.

Yes. Our forefathers WERE brilliant. How awesome is it to realize that they had the capacity to foresee a situation like the one we are in today regarding Obamafraud.

My comment is still in moderation over there, but here's a copy:

This is great news. Really REALLY great news. I, for one, was highly concerned when I read elsewhere that 1st Lt. Easterling could subject himself to some deep trouble for going public with this lawsuit against Obama. Now that I have seen the difference between the oaths here, I feel much more relieved about his public declaration as a Plaintiff.

My absolute respect for the Founding Fathers and their astounding wisdom while creating our Charters of Freedom founding documents grows by leaps and bounds each day.

My gratitude, and respect for our military officers who will stand by their officer’s oath of allegiance to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” and follow that oath to willingly expose the truth about Obama’s ineligibility gives me much hope (the genuine kind) today.

There is no way that a military officer would be labeled by any court judge as "not having standing" on this Obama ineligibility issue.

Switching gears a bit, last night I read a great blog post that had a wonderful idea. Use the Obama ineligibility issue to make all of the Porkulus bills signed by Obama NULL AND VOID!

COLUMN DU JOUR
Stimulus counterpunch:
Question O's eligibility
Paul Murphy offers strategies for combating president's Keynesian solution
--Redstate.com

Hat Tips:

The Right Side of Life

WorldNetDaily

Red State

*******
P.S. Since I didn't get around to posting and analyzing Obama's speech the other night, I present one of the best blogposts I have recently found which exposes Obama's doublespeak (quite hilarious, too):

Ironic Surrealism: Obama's Speech to Joint Session of Congress - Winds of Change or Rhetorical Hot Air?

Note: Captioned photo from Patriot Depot.com found via Ironic Surrealism.

*******
Update:

Obama is so narcissistic, he even has to VET PRAYERS NOW???

What an idiot!

I am telling you, this guy is not only a fool - he's dangerous for more reasons than I can count anymore!!

Speaking of "vetting," Mr. Resident Obama, there's something that the public would love to VET ABOUT YOU!