This article addresses the birther movement which began after the issue of whether our current president was actually born in the United States or in another country. The issue is that if he is not a native born American he cannot legally be the president of the United States. President Obama was challenged about this when he was elected but personally I believe that this was just a rumor created with the specific purpose of discrediting his presidency.

The thing that bothers me the most about this movement is that many of the most outspoken members of this organization are military officers. There have been numerous incidents of officers who are saying that they dont have to obey the orders of our Commander in Chief because he was not born in the United States. They say that the president should produce a birth certificate before they will obey his orders.

I take exception to this stance for various reasons and I dont know if Im sure a birth certificate is the real root of the problem. I believe that even if President Obama did allow these people to make him cower to them and show his birth certificate that they would find another reason to not want to serve. They should be removed from duties where they may influence subordinates immediately and they should be prosecuted under military law.

I have a major problem with the fact that military officers are refusing to serve under him. There are underlying issues which are surfacing in the form of the birth certificate excuse. The State of Hawaii has declared that there is a valid birth certificate showing that President Obama was born there but that is not good enough for the birthers. Our Commander in Chief is not obligated to show his birth certificate to them or anyone else, nor should he. So they will say that they have a valid reason as long as he doesnt show it and he wont.

I have a bigger problem with military officers who expound this rhetoric than I have with anyone else because as military officers they have subordinates who serve under them. I wonder if they allow their subordinates to refuse to obey their orders if they object to them having the rank for whatever reason. This is the same respect that they should display for their own Commander in Chief. They are entitled to feel as they do and if they have a case take it up through legal channels. This is the way that things are done in the military. To refuse to obey orders is detrimental to good order and discipline in the military because it encourages dissention in the ranks.

As officers their job is to uphold good order and discipline and this is not what they are doing. This is the reason that General McChrystal was fired recently. He was not fired because of his point of view he was fired because when he aired his opinion it was detrimental to the military mission in Afghanistan

As far as Im concerned they need to do their duty and serve alongside the other troops who are obeying the orders of their chain of command. After all it is an all volunteer Army. As officers they are free to resign their commission at any time. If you dont like it then leave.

As far as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan go, they were not started by President Obama. These wars are the work of our last president. Our current president is only doing what he needs to do in order to secure control before he pulls our troops out of this region.

If you serve in the US Military you had to take an oath when you signed up. You pledged to serve and to obey the lawful orders of your superiors. If you feel that our Commander in Chief should not be in office use the legal recourse given to you to pursue the issue. While you are pressing charges you are still obligated to obey the lawful orders of your Commander in Chief because the burden of proof is on you the accuser. Military Ring Express