Both Oil for Immigration & Citizen Wells are reporting the following contact to the Joint Chiefs of Staff written by Dr. Douglas W. Schell.

Dr. Schell was a commissioned officer in the USAF and is speaking from that perspective. His email to the JCS details the Constitutional crisis that will ensue if an ineligible Obama takes office. He states:obamaistoast

[...] could well split the military between those who will stand by the Constitution vs. those who stand by traitors in order to keep their military offices.


Here’s my question.

What happens if you serve in the military and believe that Obama is not legitimately POTUS . . . that he is a usurper or worse? You are sworn to uphold the Constitution of our Republic. Your obligation & loyalty is to the country and not to any individual man or woman.

Further, is there any possibility that the military would consider/or act on removing a person that has fraudulently obtained the office and is ineligible? I would not want to be faced with this dilemma.


  1. Benjamin Gal-Or [Photon03]

    Is Obama Presidency Legal?

    1. “Obama has a “new” hospital of birth and things are heating up with the recent Army Major’s refusal to deploy to Afganistan and claiming CO Status based on Obama’s eligibility status.”

    “when a Army Major claims CO Status over “Obama’s Illegal Presidency”, nothing is said. Everyone is staying away from this news story. Obama is scared to death over this…. therefore, the internet is being scrubbed to reflect his latest hospital of birth.”

    The Roger Hedgecook Show, July 15, 09;

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103626; ”


    2. Barak Hussein Obama has been legally charged in a few U.S. Federal Courts [E.g., The United States District Court For The Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Berg V. Obama] and in the Superior Court of California, that he is NOT a Legal President of the United States.*

    * “AP- WASH. D.C. — In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group Americans for Freedom of Information has Released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California.

    The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking.”

    (Crusader Rabbit, July 08; 19, 2009)

    3. Barak Hussein Obama has declared [via the U.S. State Department; A7News July 2009] that what is — by all verifiable evidence known to all during thousands of years — the core homeland of the Hebrews, in and around the old city of Jerusalem, and their holiest site in its very center — the Temple Mount [see below] — are not for them but for the Islamic Palestinians — for according to the revised history that Obama supports — these are “illegal” settlements for the Jews. [A7News and below]

  2. A. Brit

    My impression is most Americans do not understand the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. A Republic implies the rule of law, but a Democracy uses majority rule, as interpreted by an oligarchy of elitists.

    Does anyone really believe a democracy will improve healthcare or racial equality? Just look at the UK …we have the worse health-care sytems in Europe and more young black men are stabbed by other black men than all other race groups combined!

    The issue is not whether the President is a natural born citizen or not it is all about deception and whether or not a person loves the truth.

    1. admin


      You are absolutely correct most Americans do not know the difference between a Republic and a Democracy … and that includes many of our lawmakers and most of the MSM.

    2. jtx

      Actually, Obama’s whole life seems to be nothing but a work of fiction. The man has never shown himself to be Constitutionally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.

      If you’d like to see something from a different point of view, watch the two short videos below which, even though they start slowly and have a bit of fun, contain a wealth of factual data – more than we’ve seen from Obama.

      In fact in the second video a famous senator is quoted speaking about someone that sounds for all the world like “Our Boy” and really strikes a chord.

      Only thing is the senator was the Roman named Cicero speaking in 42 BC – but the message is still very directed and pertinent for all of us:

      Three Little Words

      Merry Christmas OmeriKa!!

  3. Ed Darrell

    As the employers of the POTUS dont the american people have the right to demand the same proof? I say yes we do.

    But the American people (with a capital A) do not have a right to ignore the proof once it’s been presented — or in this case, presented six separate times.

    If you present proof of your citizenship to a potential employer and the employer refuses to look at it, he has no right to claim that as an issue in the hire decision. In some cases, the employer might be subject to prosecution.

    Six times Obama’s made the showing that he’s eligible. There is not a shred of evidence to refute. There is no document that shows a different citizenship at any point. There is no one who has presented an affidavit of information that would invalidate Obama’s eligibility.

    Since the proof has been presented, and since there is no rebuttal at all, the issue is settled. And so the courts have ruled.

    1. jtx

      Ed Darnell:

      You are, quite simply, WRONG in everything you say. I understand how to support the guy you so love that you’re willing to (let’s say) stretch the truth, but Obama has hever presented any proof of his birth, citizenship, date of birth, etc., etc. to any rigorous court of law – let alone to the American people. He (and his supporters such as you) have stated many things and shown many bogus Photoshopped documents but nothing that would stand up under Judicial examination in a court of law.

      In addition, no court has ever “ruled” on anything resembling the merits of the cases brought to the courts – in fact they so far have universally refused to hear anything. Most probably this is because many of them realize that the man is a usurper.

      Apparently you do not know that or do not care that a person who has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies has your (and your family’s) life virtually in his hands … and he is by no means like Jesus Christ. If fact he’s not even a Christian and truly hates this country and fully intends to destroy it.

  4. Ed Darrell

    The question you ought to worry about is whether any renegade servicepeople will take their oath seriously enough, but contrary to your odd, unsupported view, determine that your assault on Obama is the threat to the U.S.

    Did you see the video of Obama speaking to the troops last week? The sane members — more than 99.99%, it appears — have already determined Obama is the president.

    See it here:

    1. sandstone Post author

      Well, Ed I’d love to see the video, but like so much else about Obama it’s already been scrubbed … Youtube says it was being shown in violation, don’t ya know!

  5. Pingback: More Questions About Soetero-Obama…..Day 9, January 28, 2007 « The Usurpation Chronicles

  6. Joe

    I am a senior military officer. I swore to “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.” Therefore, I will uphold the Constitution against any usurper who hijacks the Presidency. If a usurper is not eligible under the Constitution to hold the office of President, I have no duty to follow his/her orders. More importantly, I have an affirmative duty to expose him and restore order.

  7. bored09

    I would just like to make a statement. No I do not think the military would attempt a coup unless the majority of americans were demonstrating against a president they did not feel met the requirements. (Not saying Obama here, just anyone in general). I do have a question of my own though. When ANY of us go for a job interview we have to produce evidence to our prospective employer that we are legally allowed to work in the US. As the employers of the POTUS dont the american people have the right to demand the same proof? I say yes we do

  8. angels81

    Beckwith, You know by my previous post what I mean by, throwing out. Like I said above, you have to have standing within the law. The Supreme Court have deemed that none of these suits have any standing, that is why thy have been dismissed without comment. Since they have no standing with the court, they have no case.

    1. jtx


      It is you who are delusionsl and Beckwith is quite correct.

      The DOJ attorneys specitically in the Kerchner et al v. Obama et al case are actually violating the oath they took (similar to the military oath) pledging to protect and defend the Constitution. The DOJ lawyers are actually working to attack the US Constitution by trying to prevent any court hearing the case on merit and keep a man in office illegally. This case if presently in Federal Appeals Court and will eventually go the SCOTUS. The final outcome will tell us much about whether there is a Constitutional Republic left.

      As for “standing” that is completely a judicial fiction and the attempted use of such by the DOJ guys is based largely upon the opinion in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife with the court opinion written (extensively) by Justice Scalia. The opinion, correct in the context of the case involved, refers to a plaintiff’s ability to bring a legal action against an act or acts of the Legislative or Executive branches (i.e., a statute of regulation thereof).

      As such, “standing” has application only to those actions just mentioned and does not in any way relate to the US Constitution (that is supreme with respect to the acts mentioned) which may not be changed by the Legislative or Ececutive branched at their whim, but only by Constitutional Amendment. The attempted use of “standing” in the Kerchner et al case is therefore entirely misplaced and has no effect as the case involves Constitutional matters. You need to find out more about the case and what it involves.

      To understand just what is being appealed in the Kerchner et al case it would be helpful to read this legal analysis:

      A Federal Judge takes 4 strikes!!!

      and, following that, if you go to the Mario Apuzzo website and actually read the Initial Appeals Brief of Jan 19, 2010, you’re in for a real eye-opener (as are the DOJ attorneys “defending” Obama using our tax money).

      That’s doubly ironic since these attorneys – and their bosses – took an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign AND domestic but they are now in the position of actually attacking that very document rather than defending it and are trying to get an obviously ineligible man to remain in an office he has never shown himself to be eligible to hold.

      The wonderful Apuzzo Brief is a primer on both Constitutional law, the meaning of it, the Founders’ intent vis-a-vis Article II of the Constitution and a forceful put-down of the lies and misinformation put forth by the Obama Flying Monkeys such as “smrstrauss” (and apparently you) and others.

      I’d urge everyone to read the Initial Appeals Brief from Attorney Apuzzo’s website along with the many essays by both Mario Apuzzo AND his Lead Plaintiff, Charles F. Kerchner. While there, it would really help to donate even a small amount to the publicity/education fund presently used only for full-page newspaper ads in the Washington Times National Weekly Edition.

      The Initial Appeals Brief gives a very good overview of the original action AND it puts the lie to the many false arguments by the Obot Flying Monkeys about why BHO is either (their words) eligible to hold the office he now occupies OR that it (their words) doesn’t matter that he is not eligible.

      Your understanding of the relation of the U. S. Constitution to We The People will be forever enlightened.

      Actually, Obama’s whole life seems to be nothing but a work of fiction. The man has never shown himself to be Constitutionally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.

      If you’d like to see something from a different point of view, watch the two short videos below which, even though they start slowly and have a bit of fun, contain a wealth of factual data – more than we’ve seen from Obama.

      In fact in the second video a famous senator is quoted speaking about someone that sounds for all the world like “Our Boy” and really strikes a chord.

      Only thing is the senator was the Roman named Cicero speaking in 42 BC – but the message is still very directed and pertinent for all of us:

      Three Little Words

      Merry Christmas OmeriKa!!

  9. Beckwith

    angels81 keeps saying that the SCOTUS “have thrown all these cases out.”

    Fact is, none of them have been “thrown out.”

    angels 81 is delusional.

  10. angels81

    gaetano- Come back to the real world. The courts have thrown all these cases out because they don’t meet the legal requirements to be heard. The law is a funny thing in that you first have to show standing , and these nut jobs can’t even jump that hurdle. As far as a cover up, please tell me, is the supreme court part of the cover up? How about the state of Hawaii? What about congress? Maybe God is part of the cover up too? Did I miss anybody?

  11. gaetano

    Hey angels 81 ,you are so full of sh%% that you eyes must be brown by now.No one has been given the chance to proove their suit.Can`t you see this cover up? This Obamma charactor or whoever he his has to answer questions sooner or later,and no one will let this go untouched .He might become president,but this bullsh%% will take him out.

  12. Pingback: You’d Never Know from the British Media this Problem even Exists……….. « uk1884

  13. angels81

    sportsone: No court in the land has found one credible case that has any legal merit to question Obama’s status to become President. Rumors and questions don’t count when it comes to the law. If the courts find nothing of merit, the military will have no doubt who is the commander in chief. Just because some people think otherwise, doesn’t make it so. Until the courts say Obama is not president, the military will follow the constitution and the UCMJ. By the way, I’m a Nam vet.

  14. angels81

    Annie O, why should he? He has produced a legal document that has satisfied all the requirements needed. It is up to the people who charge Obama as to not being legal to prove their case. So far Berg or anyone else hasn’t come up with one fact to prove their case against Obama. The courts have thrown out all these case, without comment, because they have no legal merit. In this country, you need credible charges to pass the legal smell test, and no one has come close yet.

  15. sportsone234

    I purposely posed the question about the military carrying out orders from an ineligible official for a reason.

    Most of the country thinks and talks in sound bytes with very little deliberative thought. What are the various sides to this topic and what are the long term consequences of carrying out (what some would term illegal orders) from an illegal source?

    Could someone who is actually (or has served) in the military answer this question.

    What are recruits, officers, etc. told concerning this? Is the training to carry all orders regardless of the source or consequence? Is defying an order the same thing as refusing to carry out an illegal order?

    Thanks to all who continue to discuss this topic in a respectful manner!

  16. Annie O

    A dilemma indeed. With all of Obama’s planned spending we hear nothing about spending to protect our Armed Forces. So what if he sends our troops somewhere and they are inadequately protected?

    Or what if US military agendas change under Obama? What if Obama wants our troops in Africa?

    Obama could clear any doubts by producing his documents. WHY DOESN’T HE???

  17. angels81

    1/12/09- Supreme Court threw out Bergs latest suit without comment, so as of now, if the military was to refuse to support President Obama, the military would be in revolt against the lawful government of the United States of a America.

    1. RacerJim

      No controlling legal authority (Congress or Court) has in fact considered all the evidence pertaining to Obama's eligibilty to serve as POTUS and legally pronounced him eligible or ineligible, so as of now, any military officer who believes Obama is ineligible to serve as POTUS is duty bound to refuse any/all orders.

  18. Beckwith

    To angels81:

    As a veteran, I know exactly what the UCMJ is and I know that members of the military are obliged to follow the “lawful orders” of their officers “in the chain of command.”

    You just didn’t understand my post – at all.

    1. RacerJim

      As a veteran I also know what the UCMJ and UCMC are, and I also know that non-commissioned officers take an oath to uphold, defend and protect the U.S. Constitution and obey the lawful orders of officers in/up their Chain of Command. However, I further know that commissioned officers take an oath to uphold, defend and protect the U.S. Constitution ONLY…they are in fact, obliged to disobey what they believe are illegal orders of officers in/up their Chain of Command

  19. angels81

    Nice try Ted, but so far the people, congress and the supreme court disagree with your pipe dream.

  20. Ted

    The coup would be by the usurper. To oust the coup (e.g., by the military) would be to RESTORE the constitutional republic.

  21. angels81

    This thread is asking the question… Would the military serve, if they thought the president wasn’t a natural born citizen, even thou the majority of the people have voted and congress and courts agree that he is president. So if they refuse to follow the UCMJ and not serve the commander in chief, that sure sounds like a military coup to me.

    1. RacerJim

      Since Congress and the Courts have agreed to allow Obama to serve as POTUS without questioning his eligibility to do so, that sure sounds like a military coup would be justified in order to make Obama actually prove he is eligible and remove him if he can't/won't.

  22. sportsone234

    The question is legitimate and remains.


    1. bandido

      The Coup has already taken place. The military is in cahoots with obama & Congress is playing fiddle.
      After all…when the U.N says bomb Libya, obama (as Chief of Security for the U.N.) says ok & the military follows suit knowing Damn well that there is no Congressional authority for war. In the meantime, obama has given millions of dollars, weapons, military advise to the Libyan Hamas. That militant gang of CIA created Al Queda. Yep…Americans now support a terrorist group thanks to our Bastard acting like a POTUS. The "Trifecta Fraud" Fake SS#, Fake BC, Fake Selective Service Reg.

  23. angels81

    Beckwith, you don’t have much knowledge about the UCMJ which states the chain of command. All service personal are bond by the UCMJ, which puts the commander in chief at the top. If people think the military would start a coup to take over this country because they don’t think the president is not really the president, then this country is doomed. The fringe wingnuts are really spending to much time in the land of OZ.

    1. RacerJim

      angels81: You either don't have any knowledge or are omitting your knowledge that last month the military Judge presiding over the Courts Martial of Army LTC Lakin (who refused to obey an order based on his belief that his CINC, Obama, is not eligible to be CINC) ruled that LTC Lakin's Chain of Command ends at the Pentagon. Based on that ruling, the Judge then ruled that LTC Lakin therefore can neither request discovery of evidence substantiating Obama's eligiility or proffer any evidence to the contrary.

    1. RacerJim

      22 Nazi officers tried that excuse during the Nurmburg trials…it didn't work then and won't work now.

  24. angels81

    The fringe on the right and the left have really fallen off the deep end. They just can’t except the fact that the majority of the voting public voted for Obama, the man they hate beyond all reason. The supreme court, congress and the people aren’t buying any of this tin foil hat birth certificate stuff. People like, Berg and the loony fringe element on the web are wasting time and money running with these dreams of changing the will of the people with some far out charge that the courts, congress and the people have already dealt with.

    1. jtx


      “angels81” sounds very much like (and use the very same incorrect themes as) the notorous Flying Monkey “smrstrauss” and wife “ann1” who have been clearly “outed” on another thread and who have (along with others using the group nics for convenience and effect) posted thousands of time in support of their hero always spouting complete misingormation/disinformation and who attempt to mislead anyone by various red herrings and straw men.

      They are not to be believed.

    2. RacerJim

      You just can't accept the fact that no one with the fiduciary duty to verify every Presidential candidate's eligibilty BEFORE the primary election ballots are printed verified Obama's eligility. Had one/more done so Obama shouldn't even have been on the Democratic primary ballot, nevermind the general election ballot. The plain and simple fact of the matter is that if Obama's father was in fact who Obama claims he was then because Obama's father was never a U.S. Citizen of any type Obama CANNOT be a "natural born Citizen" as required by the U.S. Constitution and defined by at least four legacy SCOTUS cases…born in the U.S. to U.S. Citizen parents(plural).

  25. anonymous

    I say good riddance to those who would not fall in line; people who would disobey a command are not fit to shine my shoes.

Comments are closed.