Posted on 07/15/2009 5:37:44 AM PDT by buggy02
A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida scheduled to report for deployment to Afghanistan within days has had his military orders revoked after arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office. His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders. "We won! We won before we even arrived," she said with excitement. "It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!" She continued, "They just said, 'Order revoked.' No explanation. No reasons – just revoked."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Can anyone explain to be the difference between a rescinded order and revoked order. News stories are using both.
1776 was a very good idea, we just have to make it come back alive.
Major Cook is living up to his Oath. He has other liabilities now as does EVERY other veteran (active, retired, etc), until Obama comes clear to his birth records:
At the Tokyo War Crimes trial, it was declared “[A]nyone with knowledge of illegal activity and an opportunity to do something about it is a potential criminal under international law unless the person takes affirmative measures to prevent commission of the crimes.”
Under the Nuremberg Principles, you have an obligation NOT to follow the orders of leaders which are illegitimate. Military members all bound by what U.S. Chief Prosecutor Robert K. Jackson declared in 1948: [T]he very essence of the [Nuremberg] Charter is that individuals have intentional duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual state. In 1953, the Department of Defense adopted the principles of the Nuremberg Code as official policy of the United States.
Also, check out:
-- Article 92 of the UCMJ
-- Army Commissioned Officer Oath of Office
Major Cook must follow “lawful orders”. However, those coming from a possible ILLEGITIMATE Commander-in-Chief must be questioned until proven to be legitimate. Major Cook doesn't have the luxury to question them if he finds himself under fire.
At THIS juncture, Obama’s legitimacy is growing more questionable by the day. He needs to put up or step down.
Since you pointed out my lack of ambition when it comes to reading articles, I did take the time to read this one. No mention of the soldier/officer who has to take his place, or those who will be without his leadership...
> 1776 was a very good idea, we just have to make it come back alive.
Amen. And then plug the loophole that allowed this cluster$@*! to happen in the first place.
You are naive if you think this is a victory. The Major is about to have his ass handed to him by the U.S. Military. If you think they are going to stand for the birth certificate stuff as a means to avoid deployment, you are kidding yourself.
I still think that he will fall under the UCMJ. Of course I defer to the JAG or those with legal expertise in this matter.
Hey, the other thing is that I'm no Obamalamadingdong supporter, I think he's hiding something in or on his birth certificate that is embarrassing. Of course the fact that he hasn't been made to show ANY of his school transcripts or any written of his records is more of a mystery. Heck we even found out that Al Gore was a dolt who had a lower GPA than Bush. I'm sure we'll know Palin's kindergarten's offenses and every little bit of info on her kids and her husband as well.
that's what libs do. It's now OUR jobs as FReepers to expose every tid bit of information that we can get, every little piece of dirt on the libs. They've declared war..... sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
I think it's going to be fun now that the gloves are off.
We should have a ping list of every democrat's family member and democrats foibles. Of course this will only crash the server because of the sheer volume, but it'll be fun.
>Can someone tell me if abortion clinics can issue valid birth certificates when their procedure fails?
>
>Not saying anything about the health centers in question here, but the question on why two hospitals just got me thinking “what happens” if you are born in one place and taken to another?
>
>What happens if you are delivered in a car? or in the ambulance? or in an elevator? Do you still get a valid birth certificate???
My mom’s done a couple of home births, and those siblings DO have valid birth certificates.
keep up the good fight.
“My dh was. And he was one of them.
That said, what’s your point? That I was lying to fellow FReepers? What the heck is going on at FR?”
Hey, my deepest apologies! I never meant to call you a liar!
If what you say is true (and now I don’t doubt it) then are these guys going to really stand up and defend the Constitution or defend O?
I’m sorry I have had such a defeated spirit since last November I find any good news hard to believe.
Our only hope is that our military will act like Honduras and do what is necessary. Do you get any sense of this?
Thank you.
I guarantee this story is making its way through every rank in every branch of the military today. And I will bet you that what this Major has done, has given hope to the majority in our armed forces. They know a non-supporter & an anti-American philosopher when they see one. They are expected to follow orders from their superiors, yet very few see him as a Superior who would lead his troops by throwing himself on a mortar to protect his men. Bush would have.
This illegitimacy question has been heating up, and it will soon reach it’s boiling point. And I think this Major has helped rise the temperature by showing others this can be done.
Well, now. It took a bit of fumbling around in the Dark Ages, and a lot of royal family blood feuds to get to a Constitutionally neutered Monarchy over there, now, didn't it?
As Churchill observed, "America can always be counted on to do the right thing...after exhausting all other options."
We've got another 'time for choosing' coming up in 2010.
Good point - I forgot about that!
I think it’s admirable. And so do a lot of senior Officers who were talking about it in a bar last night, and toasting to his name.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I have prayed daily for some years now that honest, capable, and brave leaders will arise to defend the Constitution. Maybe, the is the beginning of an answer to many citizens’ prayers?
>No. The difference in the reaction of FReepers, though, is the surprising part.
>
>Crazy... in a shallow and short-sighted kind of way.
Actually, I think they both have/had valid points. The operations in Iraq (War on Terror) weren’t ever explained as being the resumption of hostilities after a cease-fire; so technically we were still at war w/ Iraq (and may still be) and that is HOW that first case should have been decided, IMO.
What we have here though is slightly different though; the Officer is questioning the orders on the President’s Constitutional eligibility alone; as his oath is to the Constitution this seems both reasonable and right/just to me. If Pr Obama is found to be eligible then I’m sure he would follow those orders but if he is NOT then the Major has the duty to remove him from office... just like all other military servicemen.
Let me put it to you this way: If I were up for a promotion to SGT from my current SPC, fully qualified and eligible, and the S1 lost some key paperwork (like a current PT test, let’s say) then it is my duty to provide the documentation (that is, a copy of the PT test).
Here we have someone getting the promotion to Commander In Chief who is missing documentation (Birth cert, adoption papers, passports, etc) and refuses to acknowledge his own duties to provide them.
That is the big difference here, I think. That the “rules” are excused for the politically powerful but enforced on the grunts like the lower enlisted.
We don't know that yet. I expect that the other shoe has yet to drop, and the Major may yet be court-martialed. I don't think that the Major's lawyer is going to get very far asking the Court to force the president to produce his long-form BC, either.
The Constitution does NOT mention parties, nor vetting; therefore, every citizen can challenge a Presidential nominee on eligibility grounds. It would be tiring if you had to do it in private with everyone instead of just making it publicly available.
They cannot court-martial him if the order has been rescinded. They would charge him under Article 92, Failure to Obey a Lawful Order and they could throw in Article 88, Contempt Toward Officials. The order has to be in effect for the elements of Article 92 to be provable in court.
By revoking the order they pulled their tail in and ran the other way.
My experience in these kinds of matters is extensive. I am sure I’m correct.
“They” don’t want a court-martial becasue they would have to disclose the President’s long form birth certificate in discovery to prove the President is the lawful CIC.
> Well, now. It took a bit of fumbling around in the Dark Ages, and a lot of royal family blood feuds to get to a Constitutionally neutered Monarchy over there, now, didn’t it?
And don’t forget a proper Revolutionary War — you know, where the good guys (Round Heads) got to chop of the King’s head in order to make him listen to Parliament?
That’s one thing you Yanks did wrong with your Revolutionary War: you didn’t chop off anybody’s head. Even the French got that part right with their Revolution. Even the Russians did, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.