>His refusal is not based on rumor.... it is based on an absolute lack of proven fact.
I don't think that would stand up at a military trial. Regardless of his or my doubts about Obama's origins, the court would probably find that he cannot disobey orders based on something unproven. On Jul 16, 12:40 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > His refusal is not based on rumor.... it is based on an absolute lack > of proven fact. He swore to defend the constitution and based on that > to follow lawful orders... those were the terms of his employment with > the Army, Aren't the requirements for POTUS/CIC written in black and > white in that document ?? Or is it that you have no use for the > constitution ?? > > If I walk up to him wearing a generals or colenels uniform and give > him an order should he follow that order when he knows or truly thinks > I am not a real general ?? > > On Jul 16, 9:43 am, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Why is it that you libbies get such delight in the government ruining > > peoples lives for political purposes? This guy clearly had no standing > > to refuse orders as he cannot claim, based on unsubstantiated rumors, > > that the commander in chief is a fraud. He should be treated as a > > soldier refusing orders. Not have someone get him fired. > > > On Jul 15, 9:52 pm, Frederick The Moderate > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > db you're laughable. Every soldier is required to obey an order from > > > their superior officer and I guarantee that someone between Obama and > > > this guy, ordered him to go. But that's okay, they had this guy's > > > sentence figured the moment he filed. Instead of going through all the > > > legal bs, they just revoked his security clearance. Guess what kind of > > > company he works for? Defense contractor. Makes pretty good money too! > > > Well, he used to, anyway. Hope his lawyer got paid in advance... > > > > Funny thing though. When that soldier refused to go to Iraq in 2006 > > > because the WPA made clear that Bush's war was illegal, all the > > > Conservatives and GOP called him a traitor and touted how a soldiers > > > duty should never be interefered with by politics and Rush Limbaugh > > > brought up the point that, if that were allowed, half our armed forces > > > could refuse to fight at any given moment etc... Funny how their > > > opinion of a soldiers' duty has changed (rather hypocritically) now > > > that the politics are on the other foot... > > > > On Jul 15, 7:35 am, "d.b.baker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I'm not talking about the courts, but the military. By "revoking" a > > > > standing order without explanation or qualification can only mean one > > > > thing: the order was unlawful. And since the standing order was issued > > > > by the POTUS, the POTUS must be deemed unlawful, therefore defacto. > > > > > Regarding the Constitution, there is no provision for enforcing the > > > > "natural born citizen" rule as it pertains to the president - as a > > > > Pennsylvania district court previously pointed out, paraphrasing; > > > > "Take the remedy up with the legislative." > > > > > More importantly, no US court has entertained the material facts in > > > > this/these cases, citing instead the plaintiff's lack of "standing." > > > > > The military certainly has "standing," although they're now beyond the > > > > court's jurisdiction. The military may, at their discretion, challenge > > > > the Commander-in-Chief via an emergency hearing in front of the > > > > Supreme Court. Or not, since there is no civilian law on the books to > > > > challenge the CIC's citizenship. But there is the lawful requirement. > > > > > The civilian courts may choose ignore, potentially inviting a lawful > > > > military takeover. The military may also choose to ignore the > > > > underlying factor of the revocation, and risk an avalanche of > > > > additional challenges. Or, speaking plainly, use the revocation to run > > > > Obama out of office because he's not a citizen as required by the > > > > Constitution. > > > > > On Jul 15, 9:41 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > d.b. > > > > > > Don't be so fast. We all know the requirements for running for POTUS, > > > > > I have a copy of the Constituion on my desk. But who knows for sure > > > > > what agency has the responsibility to CONFIRM one's basic > > > > > qualifications? Is it the FEC? When I got my passport I had to provide > > > > > proof of my citizenship to a specific authority and no one else. Sure > > > > > as hell did not have to provide proof to the media or anyone else. > > > > > The President has a Passport, social security card, driver's license, > > > > > etc. How did he get those? > > > > > > On Jul 15, 8:15 am, "d.b.baker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Bottom line: the US Military is now required to stand down. Or > > > > > > request > > > > > > orders directly and exclusively from the Joint Chiefs - all civilian > > > > > > appointees are out. > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 8:37 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > d.b, > > > > > > > > The Major's reasoning is sound. Under the UCMJ folowiing the > > > > > > > orders of > > > > > > > a superior officer who who was not legally entitled to hold his > > > > > > > rank/ > > > > > > > office would be illegal. > > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 7:27 am, "d.b.baker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > [Q] - 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." > > > > > > > > >http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009-Hidequotedtext- > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
