http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3455
Easy to reconcile, Sam. Bush would have at least had a case to argue. Obama can do nothing to prove he is an American.
That is easy: The USSC unanimously vacated the FSC’s process for recount.
The Bush case went all the way to the Supreme Court. Obama’s eligibility has never been examined by even one court.
BIG difference!
The Supreme Court had ruled on Bush and Gore- so legally it was settled.
As to Iraq being an illegal war- the strict standard has often not been met -all the while we had combat boots on the ground.
In this case, the Court has not decided to hear these cases and Obama has not shown his true and legitimate birth certificate but has, in fact, paid lawyers fees to keep this from ever reaching the point of discovery.
Disclaimer: I’m not an attorney.
My quick answer is that in context - none of those situations were under a faux “president” or fraudulent “Commander In Chief”.
There is no reconciliation in context. Arguments as to whether or not we should ever have set foot in Iraq or whether the ludicrous claims that Bush did not legitimately win the POTUS are not parallel arguments as to whether or not an individual is eligible to even run for an office - let alone set law once in that office illegitimately.
Decisions of a President can always be argued. But a person WILLING to deceive the entire world for the sake of power is an entirely unprecendented and potentially catastrophic event yet to unfold.
I hear your points and they are valid in their own context - but this is not the same subject. Would you agree?
(Although I fully disagree with those who claim Bush ‘stole’ the office or went into Iraq as payback or over oil.)
> 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?
Easy. The process that elected Bush was transparent, as was the process that put US troops into Iraq. People didn’t like it, and they didn’t have to like it, but it was transparent.
There has been no transparency surrounding Obama’s eligibility. No process has been followed. People don’t like it and unfortunately the Constitution says that people have to like it in order for it to be valid.
Let’s see the Birth Certificate, please.
we can reconcile it because those points you mentioned are proven false. Obama's eligibility has reasonable doubt.
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.
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.
Making a false claim does not equate to making a legitimate one. Those nuts can claim anything but Bush’s victory was certified by the Court and Congress.
They could have claimed they didn’t like his hair color with equal legal validity.