Just like police have to deal with absolute criminal vermin and be called "pigs".
On Jul 16, 7:14�pm, Fritz da Cat <[email protected]> wrote: > Absolutely charge Major Cook for refusal to follow orders, > insubordination, and disrespect of the President of The United States > of America. He used his position in the Army reserves, and his uniform > for a political propaganda ploy. He disgraced his uniform and his > service. > > On Jul 16, 5:03�pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > What would the charge be ?? Possibly refusing to follow what he believed to > > be an unlawful order ?? Maybe calling attention to that pesky paper and the > > requisites not yet proven by Obama ?? > > > The man with a suit to file is Major Cook. If the government is implicit in > > his being fired (civilian job) the man will (and should) make millions. > > > If his career was ended for standing up and following his sworn duty as an > > officer to protect and defend the constitution against the politics > > involved he should be promoted. > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Fritz da Cat > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Major Cook has > > > cooked his own goose. He should now be court martialed. > > > > On Jul 16, 11:21 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Frederick, > > > > > IF Obama is found not to be "natural born" that means that any order he > > > gave > > > > as CIC was fraudulent at the time it was given. There is but ONE > > > > solution > > > to > > > > the problem ..... do as EVERY President has done prior .... release the > > > > documents having to do with his birth and upbringing. Short of his > > > proving > > > > his eligibility to be CIC doubt exists and that doubt is reasonable. To > > > > refuse orders when you doubt the fitness to serve of a senior officer is > > > > within the scope his sworn duty. > > > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Frederick The Moderate < > > > > �> [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Sage, > > > > > As far as this issue goes, I'm not asserting that Obama will never be > > > > > kicked out of office for being there illegally (although I'd bet on > > > > > it!). So let's say that eventually happens. Guess what? UNTIL it > > > > > happens, every order he issues is a lawful standing order. And as > > > > > those who for obvious reasons, have never served and yet, love to spew > > > > > their stupidity are unaware, American servicemen and women ARE > > > > > government property. Legally. We had a petty officer get a tattoo on > > > > > his forehead (he was drunk). At Captain's Mast (minor trial), he was > > > > > found guilty of "defacing GOVERNMENT PROPERTY". That's what you sign > > > > > up for. Which means that until Obama is found guilty of something in a > > > > > court of law, his orders are lawful. And here's the kicker: After > > > > > that, they are STILL lawful unless modified by a new CIC. > > > > > > On Jul 16, 11:01 am, Sage2 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > � � � � � � � � � � �Obama and his entourage �are being a divisive > > > > > > cancer to the defense of the country by refusing to present a legal > > > > > > document to prove where he was born. Seems to me if he put up > > > everyone > > > > > > would shut up. > > > > > > There is a long list of papers & writings that have been hidden by > > > > > > them as it relates to Hussein ( the socialist ) Obama. > > > > ***************************************************************************��**************************************************************************�*�*************************************************************************�**�*********************** > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 1:45 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >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 > > ... > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
