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 His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.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 ...
She is doing a pretty good job as a former Russian, something that lame American lawyers should have done long ago!!!
Wow, what a pussy you are, or would it be more fit to call you a bag stabber???
I would be terrified to serve together with you in the field!!!
But also an admission of "guilt"!
The Gennie is finally out of the bottle and you can;t put back in!!
For the first time the issues is been covered by the MSM the last 24 hours, hmmm!!!
I am pretty sure that this case is widely discussed all over among the military personnel right now!!!
Not only here on F.R.???
There is a huge difference between the two!!!
Are you not dealing with tooooo much horse shit???
If the "sitting president" is not constitutionally a "President" then impeachment is not applicable.
Send the U.S. Marshalls in to walk his illegal bu** out of our house!
1/3 of the military voted for Obama.
embrace the pursuit you’ve embarked on...
Then there are two possibilities left:
1. He was not born in HI and he is obfuscating for as long as possible.
2. He was born in HI and he is obfuscating purposefully to keep conservatives on a wild goose chase and make them look like fools.
I’m guessing the latter.
I think all hell is about to break loose.
This is not that complicated. Just follow the Constitution for the removal of a president.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Presidents are impeached.
Usurpers are arrested and tried for fraud.
Wow. I’m impressed they put up a poll on this topic.
It does matter. There is a difference between natural born citizen and citizen.
No, I'm mean the guy who's letting someone else (the real hero in this story) take his place in Afghanistan.
Barry is not going to jail. As a matter of fact, neither are Bush 41 or 43. The Philanderer and Chief... no jail time for him either. Once we start throwing Presidents in jail, our government will go into full time prosecution/persecution mode until all out civil war starts, and China won't let that happen...
“But if that indeed does happen, then wouldn’t the birth certificate issue have to be addressed and consequently proof of its existence”
The SCOTUS has already denied a petioner re. Bam’s birth certificate, which in effect ruled on the legitmacy for Bam to be POTUS.
Is it “courage?”. This man is a soldier, sworn by oath to obey the Commander-in-Chief. Few people on earth loathe Barack Obama more than I do, but the last thing this country needs is its military arbitrarily deciding what orders they’ll follow and which ones they won’t, based on their approval of the current president.
On the other hand, every soldier has also sworn to defend and protect the Constitution. If Obamateur is in violation of the Constitution, then not only is this officer justified in rejecting his orders as unlawful, anyone OBEYING his orders is violating his oath.
Courage? Maybe. But whatever his motivation, his career as a military man is wayyyyyyy over.
This issue is another example of one that would go away if th guy would just open his records. Think of how many hours of court time, attorney fees, and energy are being spent so that he can fight the citizenry asking a simple question.
The Cook case was discussed in a segment by Jeff Kants on the VERY popular Howie Carr Show on wrko.com talk radio show 3-6PM EST-
this is available for the following day here. I am unfamiliar as to how long these segments are available - but it is for at least the following day here
http://wrko.everyzing.com/m/audio/25231637/the-controversy-of-the-birth-certificate.htm
I’m listening now- its going well enough and long into a second segment- worth a listen!
The Controversy of the Birth Certificate
A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida scheduled to report for deployment to Afghanistan w...
07/15/2009
Jeff Kants
http://www.wrko.com/
>>I am willing to be enlightened but this is about a specific point, whether the Constitution is followed, not about who and what orders to follow.
>
>You like to think that, but in actual fact the good major is questioning his orders, not the Constitution.
Ever since the Nurmburg trials ruled that “I was just following orders” was not an acceptable defense they gave the right/responsibility to question the legality of orders (and the right to refuse illegal orders).
>He says he won’t follow orders, unless a court rules that Obama is authorized to give them.
And this is wrong how? I mean if I get a call from Mr Smith who claims to be a Colonel and gives me verbal orders to assemble someplace at some time that I have to go? Even if he WAS a Col. I wouldn’t be strictly bound by his orders because he isn’t appointed over me. (He’s not in my chain of command; and if those orders are in conflict with say guard-duty, and I went merrily off, then I would be derelict in my duties.) The proper thing to do would be to inform my own Chain of Command and then let them duke it out with Col Smith.
>It’s a very cute point... but it is not the military’s job to make it.
And, apparently it’s not a civilian’s either... I mean look at how the USSC refused standing in the civilian cases. Further, take a look at the example above, it IS the military’s job because if the president is illegitimate then the position of the Commander in Chief is, technically, unfilled... and THAT is the top of the chain of command.
>>There was a reason our founders wanted the president to be a natural born citizen.
>
>The Founders were also well aware of the dangers of a military whose power and control lay outside the control of
>the civilian leadership. Indeed, civilian control is the founding principle of the US military.
Then why do officers and enlisted swear to uphold and defend the Constitution? Why are they only bound to follow legal orders? And, further, why can they ignore the Constitution’s requirements for the President (and therefore the Commander In Chief)?
>One implication of this lawsuit is the assumption that the military (not just this one soldier) has a right to question its orders in this manner.
They have ALWAYS had that right. There has always been a ‘show me’ attitude in the military, that’s why orders are written down. Again, refer to my above scenario.
>In a very real sense it places the military somewhat outside the control of its civilian leadership.
And this situation has occurred precisely because the Federal Government is outside the control of its civilian leadership. Nobody make challenge our ruling class: like the ruling concerning slander lawsuits against Murtha, like the USSC refusing to slap-down the illegal breach of contract regarding GM/Chrysler, like the lack of standing for any civilian to challenge Obama’s eligibility.
“That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principals and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
Major Cook is not letting someone else take his place. His reserve unit was not “called up.” He volunteered for active duty, specifically in Afghanistan. So says the Army spokesperson.
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.