Breaking: Major has orders revoked, by questioning Obama's legitimacy

Examiner.com ^ | 7/14/2009 | Dianna Cotter

[Danae]

This story has been slipping under the Main Stream Media Radar for some time now.

U.S. Army Major Stefan Frederick Cook Filed a restraining order asking for legitimate confirmation that his Commander in Chief was legitimately in Office, giving him his orders to Deploy to Afghanistan with his unit.

Today in a stunning development, the Military rescinded those orders.

This has set a precedent heretofore unknown. The entire US Military can now not only question it's orders, a requirement of their duty when they believe that an order is given illegitimately, but can expect that their orders will also be rescinded should they question the legitimacy of the CIC who is the ultimate Authority in Command. In other words, Obama.

[hsalaw]

Thanks.

[Salamander]

Life is a smorgasbord of grotesque choices....she is simply the lesser evil.....:-\

[ConservativeMan55]

bttt

[FTL]

This whole kerfuffle is silly. It could be settled in five minutes if just one person would come clean. Failure to do so only compounds the problem. The most durable rule of politics is that the cover up is always worse than the infraction.

I'm not sure "silly" sufficiently describes it. "Dire", "critical", "grim" come to mind. A constitutional crisis is a more apt description. Can you imagine at this point that it comes out that he is 100% illegally usurping the Office of The President of The United States? Sans any proof, and he has produced none - that is exactly what it is. Only by the shear partisanship of the Democrat media has this been suppressed to date. But the military angle threatens to break it wide open and it has them in a panic. If it got out of control it could spark at the least a low-level civil war and I don't throw that around lightly. The military would HAVE to react to this situation if the congress was unable to do the lawful and right thing due to rank partisanship and political hatreds. This is the price this nation may have to unfortunately pay for such wrong headed foolishness as idol worship and "president by Cult of Personality" instead of by law.

[bgill]

Honduras here we come.

Which is why the sheeple are being fed that it was a big bad military coupe and the reason Hussein is siding with Z.

[geologist]

What a concept ... do you suppose it might actually occur?

We know that the elite powers that be trample anyone and anything before them with ... no compunction whatsoever.

There is no remorse or desire to change ... ‘simply full speed ahead and run over anyone or anything that gets in their way.’ MO

God help us in our day. God bless America. Amen.

[Danae]

What I have read appeared to be the written orders which said revoked.

[Danae]

If I remember correctly, the House of Reps will vote on a President then on a vice president. It is technically possible to then have a Pres and VP who are of two different parties. Its happened a lot in our history in the first 100 years. But not in modern history.

It’s possible though.

[Danae]

Except for this detail, if Obama is not legitimately able to give orders, then he can’t legitimately revoke them either...

[kevkrom]

If I remember correctly, the House of Reps will vote on a President then on a vice president. It is technically possible to then have a Pres and VP who are of two different parties. Its happened a lot in our history in the first 100 years. But not in modern history. It’s possible though.

Except in this case, it would only be the office of President that they are voting for. No matter what else occurs, Joe Biden is legitimately the Vice-President of the United States. He was elected to that position by the Electoral College on a separate, distinct, ballot from the Presidency.

The question is whether it falls to the House at all, or whether the position is simply vacant. If the election returns to the House, they have no choice, they must elect John McCain as President since he would be the only remaining qualified candidate (Article II, Section 1 specifies that if no candidate has a majority, the House will select from the five candidates receiving the most electoral votes; in this scenario, John McCain would be the only candidate remaining with any electoral votes).

However, since there really is no law or precedent for the situation, the most politically expedient solution is to simply vacate the office, not to re-adjudicate the election. In that case, Biden would succeed to the Presidency through the normal rules, leaving the Vice-Presidency vacant until a replacement is found and confirmed.

[AmericanInTokyo]

The exact quote is this:

El pasado lunes en Montevideo, Morales también acusó al Comando Sur de Estados Unidos de haber fraguado el golpe de estado en Honduras, y afirmó que la estructura del imperio sigue vigente pese a la llegada de Barack Obama. "Tengo información de primera mano de que el imperio, mediante el Comando Sur de Estados Unidos, hizo el golpe de estado en Honduras", señaló el mandatario a la prensa.

And I dont like particularly quoting him, but it is what it is.

Taken from this source and others:

http://www.prensa-latina.cu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=100973&Itemid=1

[jwparkerjr]

Isn’t that sorta like if a tree falls in the forest and there’s no one to hear it does it make a sound. If he can’t give the order in the first place then does have to rescind it, or is it a moot point?

[GOPVet]

Not to mention all the newly commisioned Officers from Jan-Present who will have invalid commisioning certificates...

[Bob from Fairfield]

The unwillingness of the SOC to hear any of the cases brought to them - even the ones that were discussed in conference - suggests that if/when it is established that Obama is not qualified to be POTUS, the Supreme Court is likely to continue to shirk their responsibility by other means.

For instance, even with the precedent cited above regarding “The Venus” case regarding the definition of ‘Natural Born’ the sitting SOC can devise strategies to maintain BHC in office.

The same fears (of charges of bigotry and possible race war) that caused the SOC to shirk their responsibility earlier will be even more terrifying to them if they are faced with nullifying the election. I feel certain they will come up with a plan to create an ex post facto legitimacy for BHC.

[conservativegramma]

AMEN! Well said dialog. Finally, SOMEONE GETS IT!

[353FMG]

With today’s technology, a forgery would easily be identifiable which would make matters even worse than it already is.

[353FMG]

“..we will all fear for our safety.”

.
And because of the fear we should trample on our Constitution? If there is going to be a civil war, it will be worse than the first one. This one will NEVER be reconcilable between the parties at war.

[SteveH]

With the crisis in place, what do you predict will happen next?

The cusp is somewhere in the Pentagon. No doubt a lot of DOD lawyers and political appointees will start to burn midnight oil. IMHO Obama is starting along the "reactive" road that Nixon blazed in 1974 with Watergate. Think Archibald Cox and (US Attorney General) Elliot Richardson. The question those days was would Nixon resign, or hang tough?

The current Secretary of Defense is Robert Gates.

No doubt this case has got Gates' attention.

NB: Robert Gates is a Bush appointee.

Anyway the ultimate question now IMHO may be whether Obama will "hang tough."

[MozarkDawg]

... but how many others are there who have no desire to deploy someplace, not just a war zone, who know now it might pay off to question the legality of the orders.

From the article:

This has set a precedent heretofore unknown. The entire US Military can now not only question it's orders, a requirement of their duty when they believe that an order is given illegitimately, but can expect that their orders will also be rescinded should they question the legitimacy of the CIC who is the ultimate Authority in Command.

First off, how do we know this precedent has been set? Why are we all to assume that this is the end, Cook has his orders rescinded, therefore any other member of the Armed Services may also refuse a direct order handed down from 0bama?? Why is it not possible that this is the first step, yes, but not the one so many are inferring, but the first step toward prosecution of Cook for refusing to obey the direct order? Keeping him in America in order to do so??

I just throw it out for discussion, because I cannot believe the military powers-that-be would seriously allow the ability for any member, any time, for any reason to fail to follow orders/command.

[real_patriotic_american]

Aman!!! God Bless America!

You wrote-
“God bless the military.The pencil pushers in Washington may be against us. But our fighting men and women will always stand behind the American people.”