Bombshell: Orders revoked for soldier challenging prez

Drudge Report, WorldNetDaily ^ | 7/15/09 | Chelsea Schilling and Joe Kovacs

[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 His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.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."

[r9etb]

As of today, we now have a Constitutional crisis.

No, we don't.

[usmcobra]

From the orders that I say, they covered only his deployment but then again maybe his unit wasn’t called up and he was being sent over there as areplacement.

Again his orders weren’t clear on that.

[proud American in Canada]

No, we don't

Thank you for you post. I just emailed someone I know in the military and that was his take, that implying that officers may or may not follow orders impugns their integrity, that they will follow orders, and this is not a constitutional crisis.

[Safrguns]

...according to the constitution , the (Democrat) Party is solely responsible for vetting the candidate. And there is no mandate that the party must demand proof of eligibility.

The "responsibility" of the party is to it's members, not the country... and the consequences of that party failing in that responsibility is having it's candidate for office rejected at the congressional level.

"Mandates" can be legally presumed from procedural law that guides the process of verification... but a political party cannot be held responsible for the fraud perpetrated by an individual... because it has no means of independent verification (no direct access to personal information)

Can the plaintiff sue the Democrat Party to show proof ?

Nobody can be sued to show proof of anything.
Evidence must be obtained and presented that shows that a law has been broken (The burden of proof is and should always be on the accuser)
In order to sue the Democrat Party, evidence of a crime is required.

Congress is "responsible" for ensuring the legitimacy of the electoral college results. Congressional responsibility is to the voters AND to the other two branches of government. Failure to properly discharge it's duties results in the consequence of individual representatives being subject to recall by the voters, or the very actions of the congress being overruled or reversed by another branch of government.

The democrat party gambled on the presumption that congress would not be willing to face the political consequences of PROPERLY following the law which would have required that their candidate be rejected (giving Mcain the victory by default or forcing the vote into congress).

The democrat party won that gamble.

The democratic controlled congress gambled that the Supreme Court would not be willing to suffer the political consequences of rejecting the first African/American president as a matter of legal challenge under the constitution.

Congress won that gamble.

If God Himself can be sued, (and He has been), then anyone or anything can be sued. That doesn't mean that justice will be properly served.

The Supreme Court has already been given the opportunity to resolve this issue, and they punted.

The Supreme Court itself is therefore equally liable and responsible for the fact that our current president is illegitimate.

So how do you sue the Supreme Court?... you dont.

And what is the consequence of the Supreme Court failing to uphold the constitution???

YOUR FREEDOM!

[for-q-clinton]

maybe conduct unbecoming an officer, but not following orders when the order is revoked doesn’t make sense.

[DMZFrank]

You are probably correct. Its just that we are in uncharted waters. He probably should be removed by a US Marshal for trespass, and then tried for forgery, electoral and campaign fraud, and stealing government secret informstion.

But most people will probably think that the formal political/civil mechacnism of impeachment is necessary to determine the facts necessary to remove the usurper. The courts will not do it, and will probably cite the seperation of powers issue.

[DMZFrank]

All passingly similar situations are not equivalent. Watada never showed that the Iraq war, supported by MULTIPLE Congressional resolutions and funding bills was illegal. We are prepared to submit documented evidence that Hussein is a usurper.

[whodathunkit]

Look everybody, the EMPEROR has no BIRTH CERTIFICATE !!!

[mvpel]

I’d be interested to know, if you’re willing to inquire again with your military contact, what the procedure is for a soldier is to confirm the credentials of a purported commanding officer if there’s any question.

Showing up in full dress uniform with stars on your shoulders doesn’t automatically make you a general.

http://armysurplusstore.com/polishedsilverbrigadiergeneralinsignia.aspx - $5.65 plus shipping

[Red Steel]

Soon he’ll get more job offers than he has ever had in his life.

And if he choose, he most likely has an open and shut case against the government for firing him for unjust cause.

[4Speed]

instead of “Joe the Plumber”
its
“Cook the Major”

[Quilla]

Best wishes, sir, and thank you for your service.

[Red Steel]

Obama is toast if that’s the way it went down.

[seekthetruth]

"Those of us who respect the Constitution understand the concept of separation of powers and realize that even applies to a rotten lying usurping crypto Marxist bastard like Hussein. Accordingly we do not want any judicial power to attempt to remove him from office. We want discovery of the documents so that we might present them to the appropriate congressional authority to have him removed from office through the impeachment process."

Exactly! The Constitution must be followed! That means impeachment and removal from office through Congress.

[wintertime]

That means impeachment and removal from office through Congress.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If Obama isn't a natural born citizen he isn't qualified under the Constitution to be president. That means he is NOT president. He would be a usurper.

Usurpers of the office of president get ARRESTED and tried for fraud!

[mattdono]

It’s called courage.

And, the Major actually acknowledged all of this in his filing, so you’re not telling him anything he didn’t already know or anticipate.

What’s the saying, “All it takes for evil men to succeed is for a good man to stay silent”...? Something like that.

[libstripper]

How do we reconcile this action with the objectors who refused their duty claiming that Bush was selected-not-elected, or that Iraq was an illegal war? Peter Brown, Ehren Watada, etc

Major Cook is neither refusing duty nor a deserter trying to justify desertion; rather, he is a conscientious officer prospectively using the legal system to determine if the "POTUS" is actually POTUS and not a usurper. Basing a duty refusal on President Bush being "selected, not elected," is is pure garbage because the issue of the legality of Bush's election was fully litigated, with the Democrats and Gore receiving full due process, including discovery. Indeed, even the MSM was forced to admit the election was legal after they conducted their own informal recount. Hence, any refusal of duty on that basis would be entirely frivolous and illegal.

Major Cook's situation is light years different. He has prospectively challenged his orders in Federal District Court, not unilaterally refused to comply with them, and has made no effort beyond the litigation to desert or make himself otherwise inaccessible to the military. Even more important, he's challenging them on he basis that Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be president because Obama's not a natural born citizen. That issue has never been litigated in the history of the United States. Obama, instead of participating in discovery and trial, has done his level best to prevent even the most basic discovery of his "Certificate of Live Birth" along with any other records that might cast some light on whether he is even a citizen, let alone a natural born citizen.

Challenging the war as illegal is also frivolous. It was repeatedly authorized by large votes of Congress and a UN force resolution. There has been no UN resolution declaring it illegal and there has been no final competent court decision declaring it illegal. Further, those who have challenged it have done so after either deserting or refusing orders, not prospectively, while remaining under military jurisdiction, the way Major Cook has. Indeed there is no indication that Major Cook has any desire to refuse to comply with his deployment orders if there is a final judgment saying he's required to comply with them and that he will be a lawful combatant.

There's also one other matter in Major Cook's favor. As of now he doesn't have immediate orders to go, his orders having been revoked by the DOD in an egregious, national security undermining effort to protect Obama from the Major's lawful, substantial challenge to Obama's probably illegal occupation of the presidency. Indeed, that very revocation, especially in light of the terrible consequences it's likely to have for future deployments, is strong circumstantial evidence that Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be President. After all, he wouldn't risk jeopardizing his C in C responsibilities if he didn't have something deeply ominous and derogatory to hide.

The really horrible, unpatriotic, and disloyal thing about what Obama's doing is that he's almost fatally undermining his role as Commander in Chief to avoid discovery in this litigation. One of the C in C's main roles is to order American forces deployed to any place in the world on a moment's notice to protect American citizens and interests. The revocation of Major Cook's orders in this case creates the horrible precedent that Obama, simply to protect the position he probably gained illicitly, will create a vast and indeterminable number of "get out of deployment free" orders, thereby seriously undermining the efficacy of any military deployment.

[Bosco]

Q: How is 0bama like God?

A: Neither have a birth certificate.

[wintertime]

Still laughing about that one. :-)

[Principled]

As I understand, that is why it is still going to court tomorrow morning... that and others have added their names, so it just doesn't "go away".

Really? Others are also plaintiffs now?!