Has anyone on here expressed excitement about George Bush? On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 5:08 PM, VT VirtualTruth <[email protected]>wrote:
> > Funny how the TRUTH always is never mentioned by > the Bush Apologists! > > Also the individual in question Volunteered to go to > Afghanistan. Apparently he changed his mind. Like > Bush Volunteering for Vietnam. > > 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 » > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
