Soldier: Obama not U.S. born, can't send me to Afghanistan

[EriktheRed]

It didn't cost them any soldier.

This President is under no obligation to prove to an O3 his eligibility to command him any more than Bush was obligated to go out and meet the anti-war protestors who were calling on him to come out at the Crawford Ranch.

Are you deliberately being silly?

Cook's an O-4.

But not for long.

Whoops, my bad!


Shoulda known better.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

What???? Isn't he "SURE" of himself? If he's not 100% sure that the misinformation he has been swallowing isn't 100% true, then he better get his ass back to the barracks.

Your deflection doesn't change the fact that you called for the torture of a US Soldier, yet find it appalling that we waterboarded some terrorsts.

You must be the dumbest ***** on USMB. If he is SURE Obama wasn't born in the US, then he has absolutely nothing to worry about.

You have problems following converstions, don't you?

 

[Emma]

He volunteered to go to Afghanistan for the distinct purpose of filing this suit. If you doubt that, you can go check out freeper land where he telegraphed his punch.

Can the Army smack him over this?

I don't think he's violated the UCMJ. However, there are communications from Cook to Taitz (the incompetent birther lawyer that represented him) from February where Cook indicated that he wanted to join a suit as a military plaintiff against the Obama adminsistration. This was prior to May where he volunteered for deployment. This means that there are likely some questions as to if he volunteered only to lodge a suit against Obama. I don't know the exact reg, but that strikes me as piss-poor officership.

I have my doubts anything will happen to him. More than likely, he will return to where he came. His next evaluation will suck, and he'll retire.

That's just my gut. It's piss-poor officership to use your rank to try and prompt a constitutional challenge. It's the antithesis of an apolitical military, and I don't care who the President is.

It would be akin to an officer challenging Bush's authority to deploy soldiers due to the 2000 election results.

[t]he revised suit states Cook lost his job at Simtech Inc., a corporation that does Department of Defense contracting in the field of information technology/systems integration, because of the suit. It also states that Cook has been subjected to “gossip” from people who believed Cook was “manipulating his deployment orders to create a platform for political purposes.”

Boo-*******-hoo, coward.

 

[xotoxi]

He volunteered to go to Afghanistan for the distinct purpose of filing this suit. If you doubt that, you can go check out freeper land where he telegraphed his punch.

Can the Army smack him over this?

I don't think he's violated the UCMJ. However, there are communications from Cook to Taitz (the incompetent birther lawyer that represented him) from February where Cook indicated that he wanted to join a suit as a military plaintiff against the Obama adminsistration. This was prior to May where he volunteered for deployment. This means that there are likely some questions as to if he volunteered only to lodge a suit against Obama. I don't know the exact reg, but that strikes me as piss-poor officership.

I have my doubts anything will happen to him. More than likely, he will return to where he came. His next evaluation will suck, and he'll retire.

That's just my gut. It's piss-poor officership to use your rank to try and prompt a constitutional challenge. It's the antithesis of an apolitical military, and I don't care who the President is.

It would be akin to an officer challenging Bush's authority to deploy soldiers due to the 2000 election results.

Plus, it sets a precident...imagine now if hundreds or thousands of military personnel refused deployment?

 

[Emma]

Okay, here is the military's official motion to dismiss and the official explaination is on page 2:

The Commanding General of SOCCENT has determined that he does not want the services of Major Cook, and has revoked his deployment orders.

Good v. Cook Motion to Dismiss TRO (#5, July 15, 2009) - Fullscreen

Roughly translated: "The General that you were going to work for has decided that you are crazy and a piece of shit, and doesn't want you contaminated his command climate."

LMAO!

Sweet.

 

[Emma]

Actually he lost.

Cook worked for SOCOM as a contractor. He managed to piss off the commander of SOCOM so much, that he not only is not deploying, he is getting fired from his job (totally at the Commander's discretion) and he is losing his TS clearance over this stunt.

I'd say the big loser today is Cook. No trial, no job, no clearance, no hope of a future job.

Even sweeter LOL.

 

[Emma]

From the blog:

"The CEO of Simtech, Inc., Larry Grice, explained to Plaintiff over a series of four conversations within the next two hours, that he had been terminated. Grice told the Plaintiff that he would no longer be welcome in his former position at SOCOM but that Grice wanted to see whether he could find something within the company (Simtech, Inc.) for Cook. The upshot was that at this time Grice did not have anything for Plaintiff to do. 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.

Grice explained that he had been in touch with Defense Security Services (an agency of the Department of Defense[1], with regional offices located in SOCOM Headquarters at McDill Airforce Base in Tampa, Florida), and that DSS had not yet made a determination whether Plaintiff Major Cook's clearances would be pulled, but Grice made clear to Cook that it was DSS who had compelled Cook's termination. Essentially, because of the "nutty and crazy" situation and the communications received from DSS was no longer employable by him at all. So he was not optimistic about getting me another job at the company. Grice also reported to Plaintiff that 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. Grice then discussed Plaintiff's expectation of receiving final paychecks (including accrued leave pay) already owed, without any severance pay, and wished the Plaintiff well."

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy

 

[EriktheRed]

Plus, it sets a precident...imagine now if hundreds or thousands of military personnel refused deployment?

Maybe that's part of what Maj. Freeper was banking on.

 

[geauxtohell]

Whoops, Cook/Taitz just lost their motion to have their case heard anyway in Federal court in Columbus today.

Cook loses again.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Really? Please explain why my brother and I, both born on military bases in other countries to TWO American citizens had to become naturalized citizens and cannot run for the presidency?

Is it just our military children that we take that right from?

Are you positive that you can't run for the presidency, or are you making an assumption based on other's interpretation of the law? As far as I know, this matter has not been definitively established.

wasnt mccain born ouside the u.s. to a military family?

Yes.

Military Bases are considered US Territory. Therefore if you are born on a US military base anywhere in the world it is the same as being born in any state in the union. At least as far as citizenship status goes.

 

[geauxtohell]

Wow. Not only was Cook dumb enough to pull this stunt, he was stupid enough to wear his uniform into a federal court room, which is completely outside of the regs.

Then he was stupid enough to get in front of the camera, in uniform, and question the chain of command.

Federal judge dismisses reservist's suit questioning Obama's presidency - Big Breaking News - Ledger-Enquirer.com

Your time is short, dumb one.

 

[Care4all]

Are you positive that you can't run for the presidency, or are you making an assumption based on other's interpretation of the law? As far as I know, this matter has not been definitively established.

wasnt mccain born ouside the u.s. to a military family?

Yes.

Military Bases are considered US Territory. Therefore if you are born on a US military base anywhere in the world it is the same as being born in any state in the union. At least as far as citizenship status goes.

FYI

NO BY LAW, Military bases ARE NOT considered US Territory....

thus keeping the combatants in Guantanamo.

care

 

[sealybobo]

Your deflection doesn't change the fact that you called for the torture of a US Soldier, yet find it appalling that we waterboarded some terrorsts.

You must be the dumbest ***** on USMB. If he is SURE Obama wasn't born in the US, then he has absolutely nothing to worry about.

You have problems following converstions, don't you?

I have a problem with people who think they nailed you on a point and in reality, they didn't even come close.

 

[Care4all]

MCCAIN got his citizenship through his ''blood'', through his parents...not through ''soil'', the land he was born on....he was naturalized a citizen after he was born through his parent's citizenship, but 1 year after he was born, congress passed a law about american citizen children born in the canal zone that made these children being born there to an american, citizens at birth....as said, this was 1 year after mccain was born, so when he was born, according to the law on the books at the time, he was NOT a Natural Born citizen, a citizen ''at birth''....but ''retroactively'' he was....The Senate resolution, a nonbinding sense of the Senate, agreed that the retroactive status would cover him...

 

[EriktheRed]

Ass-Chasm Hannity had it on his show:

Hannity, as you might expect, chops out the two most important pieces of the story: (1) that Stefan Cook had volunteered for his tour of duty two months ago, apparently in the hopes of filing this frivolous lawsuit, and (2) that birther conspiracy theories are utterly without basis.

Hannity truly is desperation in action.

Hannity yet again questions President Obama’s citizenship - Daily Kos TV (beta)

 

[Emma]

Should that alleged attorney be worried?

It looks like we won already and not just on any day, on Bastille day « Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire

What does it mean? It’s proof that we have a totally illegitimate commander in chief and they will cave in each and every situation. It means that from now on any member of the military, who doesn’t like any order , needs to call Dr. Taitz, ESQ and state that he doesn’t want to follow the order, a legal action will be initiated based on Obama’s illegitimacy in office and the military will cave in. It means that for the sake of covering up for Obama and fraud perpetrated, top brass of the US military is willing to undermine integrity of the military. This has to stop.

-------
18 USC § 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally

(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:
(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or (2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

For that matter, perhaps the good major could be charged under that statute...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

 

[geauxtohell]

Ass-Chasm Hannity had it on his show:

Hannity, as you might expect, chops out the two most important pieces of the story: (1) that Stefan Cook had volunteered for his tour of duty two months ago, apparently in the hopes of filing this frivolous lawsuit, and (2) that birther conspiracy theories are utterly without basis.

Hannity truly is desperation in action.

Hannity yet again questions President Obama’s citizenship - Daily Kos TV (beta)

Both Hannity and Limbaugh have been incorporating more and more birther talk into their shows.

They know how to stroke their audience, but I am not sure how well it will play to their audiences.

BTW, and again, Cook's orders were pulled at the request of the SOCOM (That's Special Operation's Command) Commanding General (SOCOM was Cook's gaining unit, meaning he would have deployed with them). Apparently he wanted no part of Cook's stupidity.

 

[geauxtohell]

Should that alleged attorney be worried?

It looks like we won already and not just on any day, on Bastille day « Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire

What does it mean? It’s proof that we have a totally illegitimate commander in chief and they will cave in each and every situation. It means that from now on any member of the military, who doesn’t like any order , needs to call Dr. Taitz, ESQ and state that he doesn’t want to follow the order, a legal action will be initiated based on Obama’s illegitimacy in office and the military will cave in. It means that for the sake of covering up for Obama and fraud perpetrated, top brass of the US military is willing to undermine integrity of the military. This has to stop.

-------
18 USC § 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally

(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:
(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or (2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

For that matter, perhaps the good major could be charged under that statute...

Taitz is too stupid to realize the ramifications of her actions. Now she's pissed the DOD off.

I think she should be worried. Using your law license to try and undermine good military order and discipline is pretty damned stupid.

She's also too stupid to realize the difference between the Army pulling Cook's orders due to the fact that he volunteered under false pretenses, and everyone else.

I am going to laugh my ass off if she tries this crap again with a soldier who has been involuntarily mobilized.

She will too.

That's Orly Taitz for you. There are just some things you don't learn with an online law degree.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It failed?

ROFLMNAO...

I'd love to see your math on that one...

Yes, it failed. Cook's orders got lifted. He no longer has damages to sue. His case is officially null and void.

LOL... Sorry sport, to have failed, he would have to have not received orders, which gave him the standing to file the suit... By you're own description, the purpose was to gather the means by which to file... so... given that he received orders which gave him standing to file the suit, by every objective measure, he succeeded.

First, his claim has standing... Second; he isn't being sent to combat to serve under a dubious authority... and third; I seriously doubt that he'll be the last to advance that case.

He volunteered to go to Afghanistan for the distinct purpose of filing this suit. If you doubt that, you can go check out freeper land where he telegraphed his punch.

Hey, you want to know what the difference between myself and Cook is?

I didn't try to weasel out of my deployment to Afghanistan.

Hey... good for you, that tends to indicate that you didn't question the authenticity of the CinC under which you served... but HEY! ... you want to know another piece of irrelevance? It's hot on the sun... (see how that kind of thing just doesn't add much to the discussion; but serves to distract from the point... thus is to be avoided?)