IF, and notice I said IF in capital letters, Obama ever decides to prove his compliance with an absolute requisite (I can get you a definition for Requisite if you like.... oh, what the hell.).
Pronunciation: \ˈre-kwə-zət\ Function: *adjective* Etymology: Middle English, from Latin *requisitus,* past participle of *requirere* Date: 15th century *:* essential <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/essential>, necessary <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/necessary> of your constitution I would agree... fry him (Cook) that is. Until Obama and his followers come up with the TEN dollars (postage incl) and a long form copy of a REAL birth certificate Cook has an absolutely valid constitutional point... he was fired so he would have no "standing" to legally ask for the Birth Certificate. On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 6:14 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 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" > > > > ... > > > > read more » > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
