The BOPAC Report:
Obama, Oaths of Allegiance, the UCMJ, Unlawful Orders,
Joe the Private, and a Call to Protect the Republic
Throughout the history of America, there have been those special individuals of courage and principle who have answered the call to protect the Republic. I believe in these extraordinary times, the call to protect the Republic is being sounded again. In over 30 courts throughout these United States, lawsuits have been trying to be heard on the merits of the primary allegation that Barack Obama does not meet the Constitutional requirements to serve as President because he is not a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States.
To date, the call to protect the Republic has been primarily sounded by concerned lawyers and those they represent. The Plaintiffs in these actions are as diverse as is America. They represent different political ideologies, races, ethic backgrounds, religious backgrounds and regions. However, the courts have thus far been silent, relying on technical legal arguments to prevent the airing of citizens’ concerns in the public square. Normally in America, these Plaintiffs would have strong allies in the American Media. However, in these extraordinary times, the media have thrown in their lot with Obama and the extreme wing of the Democratic Party. (The reasons for the media abandoning the profession of journalism are a bit complicated and should the subject of another article.)
Nevertheless, these attorneys and Plaintiffs have not been the only ones demanding the government make certain that America’s Constitution has been complied with. There are thousands of supporters across America giving voice to these concerns. In fact, World Net Daily has had a petition drive ongoing and to date, over 226,000 people have signed. The American citizens who are bringing these lawsuits, signing petitions, and searching for alternatives to the main stream media are mostly ordinary Americans, with ordinary families, who are extremely concerned that our Constitution has been violated and undermined.
Most of these ordinary Americans have been relying solely on the courts to protect the Republic and are extremely frustrated that the courts are thwarting the basic, simple, common sense resolutions of this vital issue. One such ordinary American is Lt Col. David A. Earl-Graef, who recently expressed his concerns and disappointment with the courts in an open letter to Chief Justice John Roberts. The only thing these citizens and Lt Col. Earl-Graef are asking is that Barack Obama answer the allegations and establish with his long form Hawaiian birth certificate that he is a “Natural Born Citizen”. To date, this has not been done. It is important to note that instead of simply providing proof, Obama has resisted this request with legal teams and hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The circumstance that a person might be serving as President of the United States who is not a “Natural Born Citizen” creates a Constitutional crisis of enormous proportion in that every legislative act such a person signs and every “order” he or she gives is invalid and “unlawful”.
This last word “unlawful” is of the utmost importance and gives rise to questions of individual responsibility, criminal liability and morality on the battlefield. It is well established that when an “order” is given to an individual soldier, such an order (in effect) comes through the entire chain of command. Consider that:
…Authority is the legitimate power of leaders to direct soldiers or to take action within the scope of their position. Military authority begins with the Constitution, which divides it between Congress and the President. The President, as commander in chief, commands the armed forces, including the Army. The authority from the Commander-in-Chief extends through the chain of command, with the assistance of the NCO support channel, to the squad, section or team leader who then directs and supervises the actions of individual soldiers. When you say, “PFC Lee, you and PFC Johnson start filling sandbags; SPC Garcia and SPC Smith will provide security from that hill,” you are turning into action the orders of the entire chain of command.…
It is also well established that individual soldier have a legal and moral obligation NOT to follow “unlawful orders”.
…509. Defense of Superior Orders … b. In considering the question whether a superior order constitutes a valid defense, the court shall take into consideration the fact that obedience to lawful military orders is the duty of every member of the armed forces; that the latter cannot be expected, in conditions of war discipline, to weigh scrupulously the legal merits of the orders received; that certain rules of warfare may be controversial; or that an act otherwise amounting to a war crime may be done in obedience to orders conceived as a measure of reprisal. At the same time it must be borne in mind that members of the armed forces are bound to obey only lawful orders (e. g., UCMJ, Art. 92)….
So the question becomes, when does an individual soldier, Joe the Private, have sufficient reason to know or believe that an order flowing down the “chain of command” from the Office of the President constitutes an “unlawful order”?
Does it happen when an individual member of the military comes across reports on the internet of more than 30 lawsuits challenging the eligibility of the current occupant of the Oval Office?
Does it happen when superior Officers such as Lt Col. Earl-Graef start raising their heart felt concerns?
Does it matter that the main stream media may be deliberately ignoring the issue for their own purposes?
What should the individual soldier do if he or she in their heart of hearts believes the President of the United States is a fraud and cannot issue any “lawful order”?
This is the extremely difficult and perilous judgment call that every young military man or woman who is trying to do what they believe is right could be facing! Facing the possibility of jail and losing career or following one’s convictions, it doesn’t get much tougher than that.
It is very troubling that Obama shows no consideration for the position he puts the members of our military in by his refusal to provide any credible evidence demonstrating his status as a “Natural Born Citizen”.
So what’s our serviceman or woman to do?
Almost everyone involved in this issue has sworn an oath to defend the Constitution and may also have additional ethical obligations. The lawyers who are representing the Plaintiffs in these actions are bound by their rules of ethics to not bring “frivolous actions”. The Judges have also sworn oaths to defend the Constitution. Obama has sworn in election forms that he is eligible to run for the Office of President. And the individual soldier has also sworn his or her own oath to defend the Constitution:
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.
The enlisted service member’s oath provides explicitly that he or she “will obey the orders of the President of the United States”. Therefore, if Obama is not constitutionally eligible to serve as President, then Joe the Private is facing a huge conflict regarding his sworn allegiance. It is interesting to note that the oath that Officers swear to does not include the language that they will “obey the orders of the President”.
What a horrific situation Obama has created for our military men and women! The soldier has his or her oath to consider, his or her duty to follow “lawful orders”, his or her duty to NOT follow “unlawful orders”, and the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that could take a huge bite out of his or her liberty and career.
The intention of the each individual soldier is the key to him or her making any noise what so ever! Every soldier must be very careful because they are walking a tightrope with only sharks below. The soldier could be determined in a Court Martial to be fulfilling the obligations of their oaths or they could be found to be committing mutiny or sedition under the UCMJ!
The UCMJ provides:
…894. ART. 94. MUTINY OR SEDITION
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who–
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition; …
There is however another important group of people (besides the civilian Judges) who, I believe, have the power to investigate and resolve Obama’s ineligibility issue. If just one person of this group has courage and conviction for the truth, he or she can remove the possibility that a another member of our armed forces, acting alone, would decide that they must as a matter of conscience refuse to obey an “Order” coming from Mr. Obama.
This group is made up of every person in the military chain of command that has the power to convene a “Court of Inquiry” under the Uniform Code of Military Justice!
The UCMJ provides for Courts of Inquiry as follows:
935. ART. 135. COURTS OF INQUIRY
(a) Courts of inquiry to investigate any matter may be convened by any person authorized to convene a general court-martial or by any other person designated by the Secretary concerned for that purpose, whether or not the persons involved have requested such an inquiry.
So who are these men and women of the military who have the power to convene a Court of Inquiry? “Any person authorized to convene a general courts-martial” can convene such an inquiry.
They are listed in the UCMJ:
822. ARTICLE 22. WHO MAY CONVENE GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL
(a) General courts-martial may be convened by–
(1) the President of the United States;
(2) the Secretary of Defense;
(3) the commanding officer of a unified or specified combatant command;
(4) the Secretary concerned;
(5) the commanding officer of a Territorial Department, an Army Group, an Army, an Army Corps, a division, a separate brigade, or a corresponding unit of the Army or Marine Corps;
(6) the commander in chief of a fleet; the commanding officer of a naval station or larger activity of the Navy beyond the United States.
(7) the commanding officer of an air command, an air force, an air division, or a separate wing of the Air Force or Marine Corps;
(8)any other commanding officer designated by the Secretary concerned; or
(9) any other commanding officer in any of the armed forces when empowered by the President.
Therefore, in order to prevent the terrible consequences that could befall the individual Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine who in good faith refuses to follow an order that he or she believes to be an “unlawful order” given by Barack Obama, I urge those listed above to remove this burden from the shoulders of our military and investigate the allegations against Barack Obama to determine once and for all his eligibility to hold the Office of the Presidency. Again I say, Mr. Obama could easily do the right thing and demonstrate his eligibility by answering the allegations made against him!
Just a thought as to a possible starting point for a Court of Inquiry:
..883. ART. 83. FRAUDULENT ENLISTMENT, APPOINTMENT, OR SEPARATION
Any person who–
(1) procures his own enlistment or appointment in the armed forces by knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment as to his qualifications for the enlistment or appointment and receives pay or allowances thereunder…
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the status as Commander and Chief of the Military an appointment conferred upon the person who legitimately holds the Office of the Presidency?
If this does not suffice as legal justification to investigate Obama’s eligibility to hold the Office and/or issue lawful orders, I’m sure there are some brilliant JAG Officers who can provide much better legal arguments for a Court of Inquiry. (Maybe Article 134?)
In conclusion, and to eliminate any possible misunderstandings (CYA), it is solely my intention to follow the oath that I took when I joined the Navy as a 19 year old and to protect the Constitution of the United States of America. It is NOT my intention to express anything that could be remotely be interpreted as an “intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority”!
Further, I would like to request that everyone who is remotely concerned become more aware regarding the eligibility lawsuits that are ongoing such as Berg v Obama, Hollister v Barry Soetoro, Broe v Reed, Kerchner et al v. Obama and research this important issue. One thing is certain, the American media will not be telling the complete story about this issue anytime soon.
Hopefully, Dr. Orly Taitz will see this article and forward it to Lt Col. Earl-Graef.
