The Obama Oxymoron Oxymoron

I thought this crap might die down and we'd all be able to laugh at it as no one but those in insane asylums would ever again make reference to it, but this message made me reconsider:

At the gut level, there is something inherently incongruous about the terms "Barack Hussein Obama II" and "Commander-in-Chief" being in the same sentence.

Let me guess: it's because he's got a dirty furriner name and not a Real American™ name like Buff Hardback or Rip Steakface.

Having served as, among other things, a military law-enforcement supervisor, I am familiar with the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That is the primary set of laws under which the military operates.

Oh, I see where he's going with this. It's against the UCMJ to commit treason, and since every senator, every representative, the entire electoral college, all Supreme Court justices and several state secretaries of state are now committing treason against us, not to mention the fakey-fake president...

It is also honor that causes a wise subordinate to -- rarely, and with reasonable trepidation -- rise up to disobey an order that is unlawful. Or, in the potential case of a soon-to-become President Barack Hussein Obama II, an order given by a person that is unlawfully in a position of command.

Well, no. It looks like I got that wrong then. You're saying that you're not even basing this argument off of the UCMJ, but rather off of something that you think the army forgot to include in the UCMJ?

Enter: an honorable man.

For Gregory is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men--
Come I to speak in Obama's inauguration.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Gregory says he was ambitious;
And Gregory is an honourable man.

This is awesome. It's full of such unbelievable unintentional hilarity. If these people weren't actually serious about treason, I'd think someone got me these kooks as a very belated Christmas present.

Colonel Hollister raises the question -- finally... and officially -- of whether military personnel under an Obama administration would be required to obey the orders of a commander-in-chief that has obtained that position by fraud.

You know, it's at times like these that I remember what someone once said about Watergate: the president of the United States was forced to step down by the legislature, and not a single soldier stepped up to take up arms for him. It's one of the most beautiful and humbling things about democracy. And now, these people are trying to undo it. Obama was elected fairly (as fairly as elections go in this country, at least). We may not agree with everything he does or stands for, and some may work to get him removed from office, but at the very least, we have a duty to recognize proper legal authority. We also have the duty to disobey unjust laws, but there is no reason to suppose that a law will be unjust simply because you don't like election results.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

In fact, the suit also raises the question of whether said military personnel would have "an affirmative duty" to actually disobey orders that they believed to be unlawful. This is no trifling matter, no mere intellectual exercise.

I can answer that right now. All military personnel have the duty to disobey unlawful orders. Nuremberg Principle IV: The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

You may note that this explicitly says that the orders are orders of the government, so it doesn't matter if Obama is really the president (which, I hasten to add, he is).

Most of the high-priority areas contain "no-lone zones" -- areas where no one can enter by themselves. The sentries that control no-lone zones do so under rules where "use of deadly force is authorized". In the world of nuclear security, it is still "shoot first, and ask questions later". It must be that way.

I'm just going to pretend that he's right about that, partly because I don't know if he's right, but mainly because I don't care.

But, what if the intruder purports to be the president?

And, what if the sentry truly believes that the man installed as the president is in that position unlawfully? Which order does he obey -- the standing general order to keep the area secure, or the immediate verbal order of an imposter commander-in-chief? This is a real and legitimate question.

This, however, sends shivers down my spine. If the president showed up in person at a nuclear silo, I'd wonder why the heck he'd bother to show up there, since he has a variety of generals, colonels, secretaries of defense and others who are more suited to doing such a job.

Further, if I were a soldier and I received a direct order from the president, I'd refuse to do it.

Just like I'd be ordered to. All orders must travel through the chain of command, and so the President cannot directly order anyone but generals (and possibly colonels) or equivalent ranks to do anything.

Oh, but good job of putting the scary man near the nukes.

For the uninitiated, the best example of a nuclear-security environment gone awry is the 1995 movie Crimson Tide, which starred Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington.

For the properly initiated, however, citing Crimson Tide will make you the laughing stock of the weirdo conspiracy nuts.

It matters not that people like "Peggy the Mooch" believe in the Obamessiah, that he will buy them gasoline and pay their mortgage. It matters not that, somehow, an illegal alien has occupied a seat in the United States Senate for four years. It matters not that this illegally-seated senator has managed to conduct a presidential campaign -- despite clearly illegal campaign contributions from foreign sources, and despite not being eligible for the office of president. It only matters that somewhere, someday, someone in a position of military security duty will deny that usurper the opportunity to enter a command post.

Uh, if it matters not, then why do you keep bringing it up?

But yes, now we're going to get to the real meat and potatoes:

someone in a position of military security duty will deny that usurper the opportunity to enter a command post. Or, hopefully, the officer in charge of the "nuclear football" will simply refuse to hand it over to Barack Hussein Obama II.

Yup, there it is. Treason. Officers who are under the direct control of the President should refuse to follow his orders.

I thought that this was just an isolated incident, but I was wrong.