How can a constitutionally ineligible, putative president get a four-star general to resign?

The Post & E-Mail

Dear Editor:

The following email was sent to Mr. Chuck Dasey, U.S. Army Spokesman:

From: Tom Arnold
To: chuck.dasey@us.army.mil
Date: Wednesday, June 23, 2010, 5:26 PM
Subject: HOW DOES A CONSTITUTIONALLY UNQUALIFIED “PRESIDENT” AND “COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF” GET A 4-STAR GENERAL TO RESIGN, CONCEIVABLY ENDING THE GENERAL’S DISTINGUISHED MILITARY CAREER?

Mr. Dasey, you tell me how Barack Obama, the putative president and so-called “Commander-in-Chief,” was able to legally and ethically secure the resignation of a four-star general and American hero, Stanley McChrystal!  Obama has no legal or moral authority to do any such thing!  Barack Obama (assuming that’s his real name) is not, as our Constitution defines it and requires, a “natural born citizen”!  I don’t care if he looks “black” (he’s mostly Arabic in ethnicity, and he has admitted to being a Muslim as opposed to Christian).

I don’t care if the people elected him “President,” as it was by fraud.  He never possessed the qualifications to run for office in the first place, yet he lied and claimed that he did.  That alone makes him guilty of high crimes, including treason. I don’t care if the man is charismatic; so were Adolf Hitler and Jim Jones!  I don’t care if there’s a conspiracy of “heavyweights” like George Soros, Rupert Murdoch, Michael Moore, the Clintons, John McCain and Sarah Palin, O’Reilly, Beck and others to keep him in office.  I don’t care if he has numerous social security numbers while most of us ordinary folks are restricted to having only one.  I don’t care if he, Obama, knows who I am, because I am just an ordinary everyday American citizen.

Continue reading

Flashback: Media Promoted Military Criticism of President Bush

No general should criticize his or her commander, and Gen. Stanley McChrystal is no exception. But the mainstream media is primarily concerned with the political fallout of McChrystal’s apparent insubordination as revealed by a piece in Rolling Stone. They are not concerned with whether his critiques are accurate, in stark contrast to other military officers’ critiques of war policy under the Bush administration.

During Bush’s tenure, active duty generals that spoke out against administration policy were portrayed as courageous whistleblowers. Retired generals were treated as ever-wise sages of military policy. None were scrutinized as McChrystal, pictured right, has been in the hours since Rolling Stone released its article.

The most prominent active duty general to earn the media’s affection was Gen. Eric Shinseki, current Secretary of Veterans Affairs (to the media’s delight). He insisted in 2003 that, contrary to Defense Department policy as iterated by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the United States would need to send “hundreds of thousands” of troops to Iraq during the initial invasion. The media ate it up.

Continue reading

Breaking: General Stanley McChrystal tenders his resignation

Telegraph.co.uk

A senior Capitol Hill source tells me that General Stanley McChrystal had tendered his resignation to President Barack Obama and that the White House is actively discussing a replacement who could be quickly confirmed by the Senate.

The source said that among the names being touted as possible successors are General James Mattis, the outgoing head of the US Joint Forces Command and due to retire after being passed over as US Marine Corps commander, and Lieutenant General William Caldwell, commander of Nato’s Training Mission in Afghanistan.

Of course, offering to resign is not the same as actually resigning and it remains to be seen whether Mr Obama will accept the resignation. Donald Rumsfeld offered to resign as Pentagon chief on more than one occasion but President George W. Bush requested that he continue in post before eventually firing him in November 2006.

Source: