The Iraq war is & was legal mod-man. It was
approved by the congress of the USA. If it is not legal why was no
one arrested, impeached, removed, etc. including the U.S. congress?
There is no silver bullet !
All Obama has to do is present a legitimate birth certificate and
there would be no problem.
***********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
On Jul 16, 12:49 am, Frederick The Moderate
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Funny, I didn't see anything in the entire article about the fact that
> anyone engaged in a lawsuit against the US or US Military
> automatically forfeits their security clearance. And guess what you
> need to work for Simtech as a systems engineer for the DoD? I wonder
> if Cook's brilliant lawyer went over that little tidbit with him in
> advance? I bet she collected her fee in advance.
> Funny thing is, when that soldier refused to go to Iraq in 2006,
> stating that under the WPA it was an illegal war, Rush and all the
> Conservatives cried about how a soldier's duty should "never be
> questioned due to political beliefs. Otherwise, every soldier who was
> of the party not in power could walk off their posts for some reason."
> Doesn't seem to be their sentiment now...
>
> On Jul 15, 9:02 pm, Travis <[email protected]> wrote:>
> http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104044
>
> > Pentagon orders soldier fired for challenging prez
> > Army warrior terminated from job after questioning Obama eligibility
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> > Posted: July 15, 2009
> > 3:08 pm Eastern
>
> > By Chelsea Schilling and Joe Kovacs
> > © 2009 WorldNetDaily
>
> > [image:http://www.wnd.com/images/orlytaitz1.jpg]
> > Dr. Orly Taitz
>
> > The Department of Defense has compelled a private employer to fire a U.S.
> > Army Reserve major from his civilian job after he had his military
> > deployment orders revoked for arguing he should not be required to serve
> > under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office.
>
> > According to the CEO of Simtech Inc., a private company contracted by the
> > Defense Security
> > Services<http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104044>,
> > an agency of the Department of Defense, the federal government has compelled
> > the termination of Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook.
>
> > Cook's attorney, Orly Taitz, wrote in her blog that Simtech CEO Larry Grice
> > said he would try to find another position within the company for Cook, but
> > nothing is currently available.
>
> > The Department of Defense does contracting in the general field of
> > information technology/systems integration, at which Cook, a senior systems
> > engineer and architect, was employed until taking a military leave of
> > absence on July 10 in preparation for his deployment to Afghanistan.
>
> > "Grice told plaintiff, in essence, that the situation had become 'nutty and
> > crazy,' and that plaintiff would no longer be able to work at his old
> > position," Taitz wrote.
>
> > Grice made clear that it was Defense Security Services that had compelled
> > Simtech to fire Cook, Taitz wrote.
>
> > According to the report, Grice told Cook "there was some gossip that 'people
> > were disappointed in' the plaintiff because they thought he was manipulating
> > his deployment orders to create a platform for political purposes."
>
> > The Simtech CEO then discussed Cook's expectation of final paychecks,
> > without any severance pay, and wished the soldier well.
>
> > Messages left with Grice's office had not been returned at the time of this
> > report.
>
> > "A federal agency (such as the Department of Defense, acting through the
> > Defense Security Services Agency) clearly violates the Whistleblower
> > Protection Act if it takes or fails to take (or threatens to take or fail to
> > take) a personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant because
> > of any disclosure of information by the employee or applicant that he or she
> > reasonably believes evidences a violation of a law, rule or regulation;
> > gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a
> > substantial and specific danger to public health or safety," Taitz wrote.
>
> > "What has happened in the present case of Stefan Frederick Cook is that a
> > federal agency appears to have taken action against Stefan Frederick Cook's
> > private employer <http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104044>,
> > Simtech, Inc., which is a closely held corporation owned and operated by
> > members of a single family, who are as much victims of the Department of
> > Defense's heavy-handed interference with plaintiff Cook's private-sector
> > employment <http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104044> as is
> > plaintiff Cook himself."
>
> > As WND reported <http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009>,
> > Taitz confirmed to WND the military rescinded Maj. Cook's 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."
>
> > A hearing on the questions raised by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, an
> > engineer<http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104044>who
> > told WND he wants to serve his country in Afghanistan, is still
> > scheduled for July 16 at 9:30 a.m.
>
> > *Join the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form,
> > hospital-generated birth certificate! <http://www.wnd.com/obama_petition>*
>
> > "As an officer in the armed forces of the United States, it is [my] duty to
> > gain clarification on any order we may believe illegal. With that said, if
> > President Obama is found not to be a 'natural-born citizen,' he is not
> > eligible to be commander-in-chief," he told WND only hours after his case
> > was originally filed.
>
> > *(Story continues below)*
>
> > [image: Click
> > Here]<http://media.fastclick.net/w/click.here?cid=172329&mid=323982&sid=467...>
>
> > "[Then] any order coming out of the presidency or his chain of command is
> > illegal. Should I deploy, I would essentially be following an illegal
> > [order]. If I happened to be captured by the enemy in a foreign land, I
> > would not be privy to the Geneva Convention protections," he said.
>
> > The order for the hearing in the federal court for the Middle District of
> > Georgia from U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land said the hearing on the
> > request for a temporary restraining order would be held Thursday.
>
> > *Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and
> > postcards asking for the president's birth certificate documentation
> > here.<http://shop.wnd.com/store/subdept.asp?SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=251>
> > *
>
> > Cook said without a legitimate president as commander-in-chief, members of
> > the U.S. military in overseas actions could be determined to be "war
> > criminals and subject to prosecution."
>
> > He said the vast array of information about Obama that is not available to
> > the public confirms to him "something is amiss."
>
> > "That and the fact the individual who is occupying the White House has not
> > been entirely truthful with anybody," he said. "Every time anyone has made
> > an inquiry, it has been either cast aside, it has been maligned, it has been
> > laughed at or just dismissed summarily without further investigation.
>
> > "You know what. It would be so simple to solve. Just produce the long-form
> > document, certificate of live birth," he said.
>
> > Cook said he was scheduled to report for duty today to deploy to Afghanistan
> > as part of President Obama's plan to increase pressure of insurgent forces
> > there.
>
> > He told WND he would be prepared for a backlash against him as a military
> > officer, since members of the military swear to uphold and follow their
> > orders. However, he noted that following an illegal order would be just as
> > bad as failing to follow a legal order.
>
> > Before news of the orders being revoked were reported, MSNBC anchor Keith
> > Olbermann tonight called Cook a "jackass" and Taitz a
> > "conwoman,"<http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104021>as
> > he labeled both of them the "worst persons in the world." He flayed
> > the
> > soldier as "an embarrassment to all those who have served without
> > cowardice."
>
> > Named as defendants in the case are Col. Wanda Good, Col. Thomas Macdonald,
> > Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Obama, described as "de facto
> > president of the United States."
>
> > [image:http://www.wnd.com/images/bobama4-8.JPG]
>
> > According to the court filing, Cook affirmed when he joined the military, he
> > took the following oath: "I, Stefan Frederick Cook, do solemnly swear (or
> > affirm) that *I will support and defend the Constitution of the United
> > States *against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true
> > faith and allegiance to the same; and that *I will obey the orders of the
> > president of the United States* and the orders of the officers appointed
> > over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military
> > Justice. So help me God."
>
> > However, he later took the following officer oath: "I, Stefan Frederick
> > Cook, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as
> > indicated above in the grade of Major do solemnly swear (or affirm)
> > that I *will
> > support and defend the Constitution* of the United States against all
> > enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
> > the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
> > reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
> > discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help
> > me God."
>
> > According to the claim, "Plaintiff submits that it is implicit though not
> > expressly stated that an officer is and should be subject to court-martial,
> > because *he will be derelict in the performance of his duties, if he does
> > not inquire as to the lawfulness, the legality, the legitimacy of the orders
> > which he has received, whether those orders are specific or general.*"
>
> > The military courts offer no option for raising the question, so he turned
> > to civilian
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
