OT: Military Officer Refuses Order from Obama

[Zeitgeist]

Barack Obama Booed at All-Star Game
“Oops, he has been president for only five months, and already he’s being booed by baseball fans. Now, the link leads to Gateway Pundit, which is an extremely partisan Republican blog, but even Yahoo! confirms the booing and adds that Obama threw terribly; like a girl, as we like to say in the Netherlands.”

“What’s up with that? Obama is supposed to be the most popular president in history, no? If that was the case, I am pretty sure that ‘the best fans in baseball’ wouldn’t boo him, would they?”

http://www.poligazette.com/2009/07/15/barack-obama-booed-at-all-star-game/comment-page-1/

[partypup]

[quote=pabloesqobar]What you didn’t quote from the article:

Because he’s a reserve soldier who volunteered for an active duty tour he can “ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty,” a public affairs officer explained. Cook volunteered for the tour in May of this year. It is not clear why he did so, considering his current objections.

Doesn’t seem like such a big deal. There won’t be tens of thousands of reservists volunteering for active duty only to ask for a revocation prior to deploying because they don’t believe Obama is not legit. I’m surprised you came to that conclusion. Scattered revolts? Where are you getting this? You’re a lawyer, right?[/quote]

You need to learn to look more closely at facts and think more than two steps ahead, Pablo. Lawyers are trained to ask follow-up questions, so let me ask you a few that you apparently haven’t considered: I suppose we don’t need reservists for a functioning military that is currently experiencing decreasing enlistments due to bogus wars. Is that your position? And I suppose it’s irrelevant that other military personnel share Cook’s position and will likely present the same challenge, thereby thrusting this issue more into the public eye and off the backburner? Does the fact that a reservist can “ask” for a revocation necessarily mean that one will automatically be granted – when the Army is cycling soldiers back into tour so fast that they barely have furloughs anymore? I think you are assuming a fact not in evidence, and experience and common sense should tell you that something that is requested of any branch of the U.S government will not simply be granted – without a reason or an explanation. For the Army to grant a revocation to any officer – reservist or enlisted – during war time when resources are stretched so thin, and to do so without any explanation or other response, doesn’t seem unusual to you?

Do you really think we need tens of thousands of revolting reservists in order for this issue to become problematic constitutionally? And the most important question you have failed to ask: if this is such a no-brainer and a trivial matter due to Cook’s reserve status…then why is a court opting to hear this case on the merits? Following your logic, there would simply be no need to because “he’s just a reservist and had the right to ask for a revocation. Right?

Look, the reason I posted these articles is not because I expect the military to suddenly cave and walk away en masse from Obama, leaving only a few sailors in a tugboat taking his orders. I’m assuming you’re not a lawyer, but surely you understand the reason that ALL previous challenges to Obama’s eligibility have failed, don’t you? The courts have repeatedly held that the plaintiffs have lacked “standing”. Do you understand what that means? It means that federal courts feel that no person or body — other than Congress or Obama — has the legal right to raise this issue in a legal forum. What the Cook case does, however, is present a huge wrinkle for Obama because NOW the case will be heard on the merits, which is something the administration has spent millions of dollars to prevent from ever happening. It will be very interesting to see the next steps taken by the administration to counter this. Because at this point, you’d really have to believe that it would be a helluva lot easier to simply produce the requested documentation rather than endure more of these challenges to our Commander-in-Chief.

But maybe you’d have to be a lawyer to understand that 😉

[partypup]

[quote=pabloesqobar]What you didn’t quote from the article:

Because he’s a reserve soldier who volunteered for an active duty tour he can “ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty,” a public affairs officer explained. Cook volunteered for the tour in May of this year. It is not clear why he did so, considering his current objections.

Doesn’t seem like such a big deal. There won’t be tens of thousands of reservists volunteering for active duty only to ask for a revocation prior to deploying because they don’t believe Obama is not legit. I’m surprised you came to that conclusion. Scattered revolts? Where are you getting this? You’re a lawyer, right?[/quote]

You need to learn to look more closely at facts and think more than two steps ahead, Pablo. Lawyers are trained to ask follow-up questions, so let me ask you a few that you apparently haven’t considered: I suppose we don’t need reservists for a functioning military that is currently experiencing decreasing enlistments due to bogus wars. Is that your position? And I suppose it’s irrelevant that other military personnel share Cook’s position and will likely present the same challenge, thereby thrusting this issue more into the public eye and off the backburner? Does the fact that a reservist can “ask” for a revocation necessarily mean that one will automatically be granted – when the Army is cycling soldiers back into tour so fast that they barely have furloughs anymore? I think you are assuming a fact not in evidence, and experience and common sense should tell you that something that is requested of any branch of the U.S government will not simply be granted – without a reason or an explanation. For the Army to grant a revocation to any officer – reservist or enlisted – during war time when resources are stretched so thin, and to do so without any explanation or other response, doesn’t seem unusual to you?

Do you really think we need tens of thousands of revolting reservists in order for this issue to become problematic constitutionally? And the most important question you have failed to ask: if this is such a no-brainer and a trivial matter due to Cook’s reserve status…then why is a court opting to hear this case on the merits? Following your logic, there would simply be no need to because “he’s just a reservist and had the right to ask for a revocation. Right?

Look, the reason I posted these articles is not because I expect the military to suddenly cave and walk away en masse from Obama, leaving only a few sailors in a tugboat taking his orders. I’m assuming you’re not a lawyer, but surely you understand the reason that ALL previous challenges to Obama’s eligibility have failed, don’t you? The courts have repeatedly held that the plaintiffs have lacked “standing”. Do you understand what that means? It means that federal courts feel that no person or body — other than Congress or Obama — has the legal right to raise this issue in a legal forum. What the Cook case does, however, is present a huge wrinkle for Obama because NOW the case will be heard on the merits, which is something the administration has spent millions of dollars to prevent from ever happening. It will be very interesting to see the next steps taken by the administration to counter this. Because at this point, you’d really have to believe that it would be a helluva lot easier to simply produce the requested documentation rather than endure more of these challenges to our Commander-in-Chief.

But maybe you’d have to be a lawyer to understand that 😉

[partypup]

[quote=pabloesqobar]What you didn’t quote from the article:

Because he’s a reserve soldier who volunteered for an active duty tour he can “ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty,” a public affairs officer explained. Cook volunteered for the tour in May of this year. It is not clear why he did so, considering his current objections.

Doesn’t seem like such a big deal. There won’t be tens of thousands of reservists volunteering for active duty only to ask for a revocation prior to deploying because they don’t believe Obama is not legit. I’m surprised you came to that conclusion. Scattered revolts? Where are you getting this? You’re a lawyer, right?[/quote]

You need to learn to look more closely at facts and think more than two steps ahead, Pablo. Lawyers are trained to ask follow-up questions, so let me ask you a few that you apparently haven’t considered: I suppose we don’t need reservists for a functioning military that is currently experiencing decreasing enlistments due to bogus wars. Is that your position? And I suppose it’s irrelevant that other military personnel share Cook’s position and will likely present the same challenge, thereby thrusting this issue more into the public eye and off the backburner? Does the fact that a reservist can “ask” for a revocation necessarily mean that one will automatically be granted – when the Army is cycling soldiers back into tour so fast that they barely have furloughs anymore? I think you are assuming a fact not in evidence, and experience and common sense should tell you that something that is requested of any branch of the U.S government will not simply be granted – without a reason or an explanation. For the Army to grant a revocation to any officer – reservist or enlisted – during war time when resources are stretched so thin, and to do so without any explanation or other response, doesn’t seem unusual to you?

Do you really think we need tens of thousands of revolting reservists in order for this issue to become problematic constitutionally? And the most important question you have failed to ask: if this is such a no-brainer and a trivial matter due to Cook’s reserve status…then why is a court opting to hear this case on the merits? Following your logic, there would simply be no need to because “he’s just a reservist and had the right to ask for a revocation. Right?

Look, the reason I posted these articles is not because I expect the military to suddenly cave and walk away en masse from Obama, leaving only a few sailors in a tugboat taking his orders. I’m assuming you’re not a lawyer, but surely you understand the reason that ALL previous challenges to Obama’s eligibility have failed, don’t you? The courts have repeatedly held that the plaintiffs have lacked “standing”. Do you understand what that means? It means that federal courts feel that no person or body — other than Congress or Obama — has the legal right to raise this issue in a legal forum. What the Cook case does, however, is present a huge wrinkle for Obama because NOW the case will be heard on the merits, which is something the administration has spent millions of dollars to prevent from ever happening. It will be very interesting to see the next steps taken by the administration to counter this. Because at this point, you’d really have to believe that it would be a helluva lot easier to simply produce the requested documentation rather than endure more of these challenges to our Commander-in-Chief.

But maybe you’d have to be a lawyer to understand that 😉

[partypup]

[quote=pabloesqobar]What you didn’t quote from the article:

Because he’s a reserve soldier who volunteered for an active duty tour he can “ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty,” a public affairs officer explained. Cook volunteered for the tour in May of this year. It is not clear why he did so, considering his current objections.

Doesn’t seem like such a big deal. There won’t be tens of thousands of reservists volunteering for active duty only to ask for a revocation prior to deploying because they don’t believe Obama is not legit. I’m surprised you came to that conclusion. Scattered revolts? Where are you getting this? You’re a lawyer, right?[/quote]

You need to learn to look more closely at facts and think more than two steps ahead, Pablo. Lawyers are trained to ask follow-up questions, so let me ask you a few that you apparently haven’t considered: I suppose we don’t need reservists for a functioning military that is currently experiencing decreasing enlistments due to bogus wars. Is that your position? And I suppose it’s irrelevant that other military personnel share Cook’s position and will likely present the same challenge, thereby thrusting this issue more into the public eye and off the backburner? Does the fact that a reservist can “ask” for a revocation necessarily mean that one will automatically be granted – when the Army is cycling soldiers back into tour so fast that they barely have furloughs anymore? I think you are assuming a fact not in evidence, and experience and common sense should tell you that something that is requested of any branch of the U.S government will not simply be granted – without a reason or an explanation. For the Army to grant a revocation to any officer – reservist or enlisted – during war time when resources are stretched so thin, and to do so without any explanation or other response, doesn’t seem unusual to you?

Do you really think we need tens of thousands of revolting reservists in order for this issue to become problematic constitutionally? And the most important question you have failed to ask: if this is such a no-brainer and a trivial matter due to Cook’s reserve status…then why is a court opting to hear this case on the merits? Following your logic, there would simply be no need to because “he’s just a reservist and had the right to ask for a revocation. Right?

Look, the reason I posted these articles is not because I expect the military to suddenly cave and walk away en masse from Obama, leaving only a few sailors in a tugboat taking his orders. I’m assuming you’re not a lawyer, but surely you understand the reason that ALL previous challenges to Obama’s eligibility have failed, don’t you? The courts have repeatedly held that the plaintiffs have lacked “standing”. Do you understand what that means? It means that federal courts feel that no person or body — other than Congress or Obama — has the legal right to raise this issue in a legal forum. What the Cook case does, however, is present a huge wrinkle for Obama because NOW the case will be heard on the merits, which is something the administration has spent millions of dollars to prevent from ever happening. It will be very interesting to see the next steps taken by the administration to counter this. Because at this point, you’d really have to believe that it would be a helluva lot easier to simply produce the requested documentation rather than endure more of these challenges to our Commander-in-Chief.

But maybe you’d have to be a lawyer to understand that 😉

[partypup]

[quote=pabloesqobar]What you didn’t quote from the article:

Because he’s a reserve soldier who volunteered for an active duty tour he can “ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty,” a public affairs officer explained. Cook volunteered for the tour in May of this year. It is not clear why he did so, considering his current objections.

Doesn’t seem like such a big deal. There won’t be tens of thousands of reservists volunteering for active duty only to ask for a revocation prior to deploying because they don’t believe Obama is not legit. I’m surprised you came to that conclusion. Scattered revolts? Where are you getting this? You’re a lawyer, right?[/quote]

You need to learn to look more closely at facts and think more than two steps ahead, Pablo. Lawyers are trained to ask follow-up questions, so let me ask you a few that you apparently haven’t considered: I suppose we don’t need reservists for a functioning military that is currently experiencing decreasing enlistments due to bogus wars. Is that your position? And I suppose it’s irrelevant that other military personnel share Cook’s position and will likely present the same challenge, thereby thrusting this issue more into the public eye and off the backburner? Does the fact that a reservist can “ask” for a revocation necessarily mean that one will automatically be granted – when the Army is cycling soldiers back into tour so fast that they barely have furloughs anymore? I think you are assuming a fact not in evidence, and experience and common sense should tell you that something that is requested of any branch of the U.S government will not simply be granted – without a reason or an explanation. For the Army to grant a revocation to any officer – reservist or enlisted – during war time when resources are stretched so thin, and to do so without any explanation or other response, doesn’t seem unusual to you?

Do you really think we need tens of thousands of revolting reservists in order for this issue to become problematic constitutionally? And the most important question you have failed to ask: if this is such a no-brainer and a trivial matter due to Cook’s reserve status…then why is a court opting to hear this case on the merits? Following your logic, there would simply be no need to because “he’s just a reservist and had the right to ask for a revocation. Right?

Look, the reason I posted these articles is not because I expect the military to suddenly cave and walk away en masse from Obama, leaving only a few sailors in a tugboat taking his orders. I’m assuming you’re not a lawyer, but surely you understand the reason that ALL previous challenges to Obama’s eligibility have failed, don’t you? The courts have repeatedly held that the plaintiffs have lacked “standing”. Do you understand what that means? It means that federal courts feel that no person or body — other than Congress or Obama — has the legal right to raise this issue in a legal forum. What the Cook case does, however, is present a huge wrinkle for Obama because NOW the case will be heard on the merits, which is something the administration has spent millions of dollars to prevent from ever happening. It will be very interesting to see the next steps taken by the administration to counter this. Because at this point, you’d really have to believe that it would be a helluva lot easier to simply produce the requested documentation rather than endure more of these challenges to our Commander-in-Chief.

But maybe you’d have to be a lawyer to understand that 😉

[PCinSD]

[quote=partypup][quote=pabloesqobar]What you didn’t quote from the article:

Because he’s a reserve soldier who volunteered for an active duty tour he can “ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty,” a public affairs officer explained. Cook volunteered for the tour in May of this year. It is not clear why he did so, considering his current objections.

Doesn’t seem like such a big deal. There won’t be tens of thousands of reservists volunteering for active duty only to ask for a revocation prior to deploying because they don’t believe Obama is not legit. I’m surprised you came to that conclusion. Scattered revolts? Where are you getting this? You’re a lawyer, right?[/quote]

You need to learn to look more closely at facts and think more than two steps ahead, Pablo. Lawyers are trained to ask follow-up questions, so let me ask you a few that you apparently haven’t considered: I suppose we don’t need reservists for a functioning military that is currently experiencing decreasing enlistments due to bogus wars. Is that your position? And I suppose it’s irrelevant that other military personnel share Cook’s position and will likely present the same challenge, thereby thrusting this issue more into the public eye and off the backburner? Does the fact that a reservist can “ask” for a revocation necessarily mean that one will automatically be granted – when the Army is cycling soldiers back into tour so fast that they barely have furloughs anymore? I think you are assuming a fact not in evidence, and experience and common sense should tell you that something that is requested of any branch of the U.S government will not simply be granted – without a reason or an explanation. For the Army to grant a revocation to any officer – reservist or enlisted – during war time when resources are stretched so thin, and to do so without any explanation or other response, doesn’t seem unusual to you?

Do you really think we need tens of thousands of revolting reservists in order for this issue to become problematic constitutionally? And the most important question you have failed to ask: if this is such a no-brainer and a trivial matter due to Cook’s reserve status…then why is a court opting to hear this case on the merits? Following your logic, there would simply be no need to because “he’s just a reservist and had the right to ask for a revocation. Right?

Look, the reason I posted these articles is not because I expect the military to suddenly cave and walk away en masse from Obama, leaving only a few sailors in a tugboat taking his orders. I’m assuming you’re not a lawyer, but surely you understand the reason that ALL previous challenges to Obama’s eligibility have failed, don’t you? The courts have repeatedly held that the plaintiffs have lacked “standing”. Do you understand what that means? It means that federal courts feel that no person or body — other than Congress or Obama — has the legal right to raise this issue in a legal forum. What the Cook case does, however, is present a huge wrinkle for Obama because NOW the case will be heard on the merits, which is something the administration has spent millions of dollars to prevent from ever happening. It will be very interesting to see the next steps taken by the administration to counter this. Because at this point, you’d really have to believe that it would be a helluva lot easier to simply produce the requested documentation rather than endure more of these challenges to our Commander-in-Chief.

But maybe you’d have to be a lawyer to understand that ;-)[/quote]

I don’t believe you did any research before you chose to omit the most important FACT. The one fact that makes the rest of your assertions a bit nutty. I kinda thought you were over the top before, but this just confirms it. Interesting irrelevant and completely made up scary hypotheticals, tho.

[PCinSD]

[quote=partypup][quote=pabloesqobar]What you didn’t quote from the article:

Because he’s a reserve soldier who volunteered for an active duty tour he can “ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty,” a public affairs officer explained. Cook volunteered for the tour in May of this year. It is not clear why he did so, considering his current objections.

Doesn’t seem like such a big deal. There won’t be tens of thousands of reservists volunteering for active duty only to ask for a revocation prior to deploying because they don’t believe Obama is not legit. I’m surprised you came to that conclusion. Scattered revolts? Where are you getting this? You’re a lawyer, right?[/quote]

You need to learn to look more closely at facts and think more than two steps ahead, Pablo. Lawyers are trained to ask follow-up questions, so let me ask you a few that you apparently haven’t considered: I suppose we don’t need reservists for a functioning military that is currently experiencing decreasing enlistments due to bogus wars. Is that your position? And I suppose it’s irrelevant that other military personnel share Cook’s position and will likely present the same challenge, thereby thrusting this issue more into the public eye and off the backburner? Does the fact that a reservist can “ask” for a revocation necessarily mean that one will automatically be granted – when the Army is cycling soldiers back into tour so fast that they barely have furloughs anymore? I think you are assuming a fact not in evidence, and experience and common sense should tell you that something that is requested of any branch of the U.S government will not simply be granted – without a reason or an explanation. For the Army to grant a revocation to any officer – reservist or enlisted – during war time when resources are stretched so thin, and to do so without any explanation or other response, doesn’t seem unusual to you?

Do you really think we need tens of thousands of revolting reservists in order for this issue to become problematic constitutionally? And the most important question you have failed to ask: if this is such a no-brainer and a trivial matter due to Cook’s reserve status…then why is a court opting to hear this case on the merits? Following your logic, there would simply be no need to because “he’s just a reservist and had the right to ask for a revocation. Right?

Look, the reason I posted these articles is not because I expect the military to suddenly cave and walk away en masse from Obama, leaving only a few sailors in a tugboat taking his orders. I’m assuming you’re not a lawyer, but surely you understand the reason that ALL previous challenges to Obama’s eligibility have failed, don’t you? The courts have repeatedly held that the plaintiffs have lacked “standing”. Do you understand what that means? It means that federal courts feel that no person or body — other than Congress or Obama — has the legal right to raise this issue in a legal forum. What the Cook case does, however, is present a huge wrinkle for Obama because NOW the case will be heard on the merits, which is something the administration has spent millions of dollars to prevent from ever happening. It will be very interesting to see the next steps taken by the administration to counter this. Because at this point, you’d really have to believe that it would be a helluva lot easier to simply produce the requested documentation rather than endure more of these challenges to our Commander-in-Chief.

But maybe you’d have to be a lawyer to understand that ;-)[/quote]

I don’t believe you did any research before you chose to omit the most important FACT. The one fact that makes the rest of your assertions a bit nutty. I kinda thought you were over the top before, but this just confirms it. Interesting irrelevant and completely made up scary hypotheticals, tho.

[PCinSD]

[quote=partypup][quote=pabloesqobar]What you didn’t quote from the article:

Because he’s a reserve soldier who volunteered for an active duty tour he can “ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty,” a public affairs officer explained. Cook volunteered for the tour in May of this year. It is not clear why he did so, considering his current objections.

Doesn’t seem like such a big deal. There won’t be tens of thousands of reservists volunteering for active duty only to ask for a revocation prior to deploying because they don’t believe Obama is not legit. I’m surprised you came to that conclusion. Scattered revolts? Where are you getting this? You’re a lawyer, right?[/quote]

You need to learn to look more closely at facts and think more than two steps ahead, Pablo. Lawyers are trained to ask follow-up questions, so let me ask you a few that you apparently haven’t considered: I suppose we don’t need reservists for a functioning military that is currently experiencing decreasing enlistments due to bogus wars. Is that your position? And I suppose it’s irrelevant that other military personnel share Cook’s position and will likely present the same challenge, thereby thrusting this issue more into the public eye and off the backburner? Does the fact that a reservist can “ask” for a revocation necessarily mean that one will automatically be granted – when the Army is cycling soldiers back into tour so fast that they barely have furloughs anymore? I think you are assuming a fact not in evidence, and experience and common sense should tell you that something that is requested of any branch of the U.S government will not simply be granted – without a reason or an explanation. For the Army to grant a revocation to any officer – reservist or enlisted – during war time when resources are stretched so thin, and to do so without any explanation or other response, doesn’t seem unusual to you?

Do you really think we need tens of thousands of revolting reservists in order for this issue to become problematic constitutionally? And the most important question you have failed to ask: if this is such a no-brainer and a trivial matter due to Cook’s reserve status…then why is a court opting to hear this case on the merits? Following your logic, there would simply be no need to because “he’s just a reservist and had the right to ask for a revocation. Right?

Look, the reason I posted these articles is not because I expect the military to suddenly cave and walk away en masse from Obama, leaving only a few sailors in a tugboat taking his orders. I’m assuming you’re not a lawyer, but surely you understand the reason that ALL previous challenges to Obama’s eligibility have failed, don’t you? The courts have repeatedly held that the plaintiffs have lacked “standing”. Do you understand what that means? It means that federal courts feel that no person or body — other than Congress or Obama — has the legal right to raise this issue in a legal forum. What the Cook case does, however, is present a huge wrinkle for Obama because NOW the case will be heard on the merits, which is something the administration has spent millions of dollars to prevent from ever happening. It will be very interesting to see the next steps taken by the administration to counter this. Because at this point, you’d really have to believe that it would be a helluva lot easier to simply produce the requested documentation rather than endure more of these challenges to our Commander-in-Chief.

But maybe you’d have to be a lawyer to understand that ;-)[/quote]

I don’t believe you did any research before you chose to omit the most important FACT. The one fact that makes the rest of your assertions a bit nutty. I kinda thought you were over the top before, but this just confirms it. Interesting irrelevant and completely made up scary hypotheticals, tho.

[PCinSD]

[quote=partypup][quote=pabloesqobar]What you didn’t quote from the article:

Because he’s a reserve soldier who volunteered for an active duty tour he can “ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty,” a public affairs officer explained. Cook volunteered for the tour in May of this year. It is not clear why he did so, considering his current objections.

Doesn’t seem like such a big deal. There won’t be tens of thousands of reservists volunteering for active duty only to ask for a revocation prior to deploying because they don’t believe Obama is not legit. I’m surprised you came to that conclusion. Scattered revolts? Where are you getting this? You’re a lawyer, right?[/quote]

You need to learn to look more closely at facts and think more than two steps ahead, Pablo. Lawyers are trained to ask follow-up questions, so let me ask you a few that you apparently haven’t considered: I suppose we don’t need reservists for a functioning military that is currently experiencing decreasing enlistments due to bogus wars. Is that your position? And I suppose it’s irrelevant that other military personnel share Cook’s position and will likely present the same challenge, thereby thrusting this issue more into the public eye and off the backburner? Does the fact that a reservist can “ask” for a revocation necessarily mean that one will automatically be granted – when the Army is cycling soldiers back into tour so fast that they barely have furloughs anymore? I think you are assuming a fact not in evidence, and experience and common sense should tell you that something that is requested of any branch of the U.S government will not simply be granted – without a reason or an explanation. For the Army to grant a revocation to any officer – reservist or enlisted – during war time when resources are stretched so thin, and to do so without any explanation or other response, doesn’t seem unusual to you?

Do you really think we need tens of thousands of revolting reservists in order for this issue to become problematic constitutionally? And the most important question you have failed to ask: if this is such a no-brainer and a trivial matter due to Cook’s reserve status…then why is a court opting to hear this case on the merits? Following your logic, there would simply be no need to because “he’s just a reservist and had the right to ask for a revocation. Right?

Look, the reason I posted these articles is not because I expect the military to suddenly cave and walk away en masse from Obama, leaving only a few sailors in a tugboat taking his orders. I’m assuming you’re not a lawyer, but surely you understand the reason that ALL previous challenges to Obama’s eligibility have failed, don’t you? The courts have repeatedly held that the plaintiffs have lacked “standing”. Do you understand what that means? It means that federal courts feel that no person or body — other than Congress or Obama — has the legal right to raise this issue in a legal forum. What the Cook case does, however, is present a huge wrinkle for Obama because NOW the case will be heard on the merits, which is something the administration has spent millions of dollars to prevent from ever happening. It will be very interesting to see the next steps taken by the administration to counter this. Because at this point, you’d really have to believe that it would be a helluva lot easier to simply produce the requested documentation rather than endure more of these challenges to our Commander-in-Chief.

But maybe you’d have to be a lawyer to understand that ;-)[/quote]

I don’t believe you did any research before you chose to omit the most important FACT. The one fact that makes the rest of your assertions a bit nutty. I kinda thought you were over the top before, but this just confirms it. Interesting irrelevant and completely made up scary hypotheticals, tho.

[PCinSD]

[quote=partypup][quote=pabloesqobar]What you didn’t quote from the article:

Because he’s a reserve soldier who volunteered for an active duty tour he can “ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty,” a public affairs officer explained. Cook volunteered for the tour in May of this year. It is not clear why he did so, considering his current objections.

Doesn’t seem like such a big deal. There won’t be tens of thousands of reservists volunteering for active duty only to ask for a revocation prior to deploying because they don’t believe Obama is not legit. I’m surprised you came to that conclusion. Scattered revolts? Where are you getting this? You’re a lawyer, right?[/quote]

You need to learn to look more closely at facts and think more than two steps ahead, Pablo. Lawyers are trained to ask follow-up questions, so let me ask you a few that you apparently haven’t considered: I suppose we don’t need reservists for a functioning military that is currently experiencing decreasing enlistments due to bogus wars. Is that your position? And I suppose it’s irrelevant that other military personnel share Cook’s position and will likely present the same challenge, thereby thrusting this issue more into the public eye and off the backburner? Does the fact that a reservist can “ask” for a revocation necessarily mean that one will automatically be granted – when the Army is cycling soldiers back into tour so fast that they barely have furloughs anymore? I think you are assuming a fact not in evidence, and experience and common sense should tell you that something that is requested of any branch of the U.S government will not simply be granted – without a reason or an explanation. For the Army to grant a revocation to any officer – reservist or enlisted – during war time when resources are stretched so thin, and to do so without any explanation or other response, doesn’t seem unusual to you?

Do you really think we need tens of thousands of revolting reservists in order for this issue to become problematic constitutionally? And the most important question you have failed to ask: if this is such a no-brainer and a trivial matter due to Cook’s reserve status…then why is a court opting to hear this case on the merits? Following your logic, there would simply be no need to because “he’s just a reservist and had the right to ask for a revocation. Right?

Look, the reason I posted these articles is not because I expect the military to suddenly cave and walk away en masse from Obama, leaving only a few sailors in a tugboat taking his orders. I’m assuming you’re not a lawyer, but surely you understand the reason that ALL previous challenges to Obama’s eligibility have failed, don’t you? The courts have repeatedly held that the plaintiffs have lacked “standing”. Do you understand what that means? It means that federal courts feel that no person or body — other than Congress or Obama — has the legal right to raise this issue in a legal forum. What the Cook case does, however, is present a huge wrinkle for Obama because NOW the case will be heard on the merits, which is something the administration has spent millions of dollars to prevent from ever happening. It will be very interesting to see the next steps taken by the administration to counter this. Because at this point, you’d really have to believe that it would be a helluva lot easier to simply produce the requested documentation rather than endure more of these challenges to our Commander-in-Chief.

But maybe you’d have to be a lawyer to understand that ;-)[/quote]

I don’t believe you did any research before you chose to omit the most important FACT. The one fact that makes the rest of your assertions a bit nutty. I kinda thought you were over the top before, but this just confirms it. Interesting irrelevant and completely made up scary hypotheticals, tho.

[partypup]

[quote=sobmaz]You gotta wonder, if there was REALLY any question about Obama’s birth, why the Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts violated his oath of office and swore in TWICE an illegitimate President?

[/quote]

And you gotta wonder, if there was REALLY a question about the legitimacy of how the Fed spent TARP money, the Dems and the Republicans would be on top of it and mandate that the Fed release this information, right? But they have not. Don’t assume that our elected officials will work tirelessly to ensure that all misdeeds and lies will be exposed to the public. We’ve known the markets have been manipulated for years by the big banks, but it wasn’t until last week when Goldman’s secret, arguably illegal trading code was stolen that we were given a glimpse of the extent of the manipulation. And yet this manipulation has stood in the dark for many, many years. You would think someone would have brought this to light sooner, right? But that’s not how things in this country – or any country – work.

There are a lot of things that would leave you wondering – if we still lived in a country led by honest ands law abiding people. But we don’t. The last official act of any government is to loot its Treasury (currently underway). Before it does that, it treats its citizens like fools and waits to see if they respond. When they don’t, the government realizes it can get away with anything. Look around you. Sneaking an impostor into office would be one of the milder offenses committed by these crooks in recent years.

The parties are no longer separate. They have a common goal with only slightly different means to accomplish that goal. Both parties have worked together to bankrupt this country in different ways. To believe that the overwhelming majority of GOP leadership (not its constituents, Paul, DeMint or other fringe elements) truly loathes Obama as much as they claim to is naive. I think there are some issues that the power brokers in both parties have simply decided are off-limits. Dismantling the Fed appears to be one such issue. U.S. hegemony in the Middle East would be another. The chatter and bickering that you hear on the other, smaller issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc) is just white noise designed to motivate us to root for our respective “teams”.

[partypup]

[quote=sobmaz]You gotta wonder, if there was REALLY any question about Obama’s birth, why the Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts violated his oath of office and swore in TWICE an illegitimate President?

[/quote]

And you gotta wonder, if there was REALLY a question about the legitimacy of how the Fed spent TARP money, the Dems and the Republicans would be on top of it and mandate that the Fed release this information, right? But they have not. Don’t assume that our elected officials will work tirelessly to ensure that all misdeeds and lies will be exposed to the public. We’ve known the markets have been manipulated for years by the big banks, but it wasn’t until last week when Goldman’s secret, arguably illegal trading code was stolen that we were given a glimpse of the extent of the manipulation. And yet this manipulation has stood in the dark for many, many years. You would think someone would have brought this to light sooner, right? But that’s not how things in this country – or any country – work.

There are a lot of things that would leave you wondering – if we still lived in a country led by honest ands law abiding people. But we don’t. The last official act of any government is to loot its Treasury (currently underway). Before it does that, it treats its citizens like fools and waits to see if they respond. When they don’t, the government realizes it can get away with anything. Look around you. Sneaking an impostor into office would be one of the milder offenses committed by these crooks in recent years.

The parties are no longer separate. They have a common goal with only slightly different means to accomplish that goal. Both parties have worked together to bankrupt this country in different ways. To believe that the overwhelming majority of GOP leadership (not its constituents, Paul, DeMint or other fringe elements) truly loathes Obama as much as they claim to is naive. I think there are some issues that the power brokers in both parties have simply decided are off-limits. Dismantling the Fed appears to be one such issue. U.S. hegemony in the Middle East would be another. The chatter and bickering that you hear on the other, smaller issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc) is just white noise designed to motivate us to root for our respective “teams”.

[partypup]

[quote=sobmaz]You gotta wonder, if there was REALLY any question about Obama’s birth, why the Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts violated his oath of office and swore in TWICE an illegitimate President?

[/quote]

And you gotta wonder, if there was REALLY a question about the legitimacy of how the Fed spent TARP money, the Dems and the Republicans would be on top of it and mandate that the Fed release this information, right? But they have not. Don’t assume that our elected officials will work tirelessly to ensure that all misdeeds and lies will be exposed to the public. We’ve known the markets have been manipulated for years by the big banks, but it wasn’t until last week when Goldman’s secret, arguably illegal trading code was stolen that we were given a glimpse of the extent of the manipulation. And yet this manipulation has stood in the dark for many, many years. You would think someone would have brought this to light sooner, right? But that’s not how things in this country – or any country – work.

There are a lot of things that would leave you wondering – if we still lived in a country led by honest ands law abiding people. But we don’t. The last official act of any government is to loot its Treasury (currently underway). Before it does that, it treats its citizens like fools and waits to see if they respond. When they don’t, the government realizes it can get away with anything. Look around you. Sneaking an impostor into office would be one of the milder offenses committed by these crooks in recent years.

The parties are no longer separate. They have a common goal with only slightly different means to accomplish that goal. Both parties have worked together to bankrupt this country in different ways. To believe that the overwhelming majority of GOP leadership (not its constituents, Paul, DeMint or other fringe elements) truly loathes Obama as much as they claim to is naive. I think there are some issues that the power brokers in both parties have simply decided are off-limits. Dismantling the Fed appears to be one such issue. U.S. hegemony in the Middle East would be another. The chatter and bickering that you hear on the other, smaller issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc) is just white noise designed to motivate us to root for our respective “teams”.

[partypup]

[quote=sobmaz]You gotta wonder, if there was REALLY any question about Obama’s birth, why the Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts violated his oath of office and swore in TWICE an illegitimate President?

[/quote]

And you gotta wonder, if there was REALLY a question about the legitimacy of how the Fed spent TARP money, the Dems and the Republicans would be on top of it and mandate that the Fed release this information, right? But they have not. Don’t assume that our elected officials will work tirelessly to ensure that all misdeeds and lies will be exposed to the public. We’ve known the markets have been manipulated for years by the big banks, but it wasn’t until last week when Goldman’s secret, arguably illegal trading code was stolen that we were given a glimpse of the extent of the manipulation. And yet this manipulation has stood in the dark for many, many years. You would think someone would have brought this to light sooner, right? But that’s not how things in this country – or any country – work.

There are a lot of things that would leave you wondering – if we still lived in a country led by honest ands law abiding people. But we don’t. The last official act of any government is to loot its Treasury (currently underway). Before it does that, it treats its citizens like fools and waits to see if they respond. When they don’t, the government realizes it can get away with anything. Look around you. Sneaking an impostor into office would be one of the milder offenses committed by these crooks in recent years.

The parties are no longer separate. They have a common goal with only slightly different means to accomplish that goal. Both parties have worked together to bankrupt this country in different ways. To believe that the overwhelming majority of GOP leadership (not its constituents, Paul, DeMint or other fringe elements) truly loathes Obama as much as they claim to is naive. I think there are some issues that the power brokers in both parties have simply decided are off-limits. Dismantling the Fed appears to be one such issue. U.S. hegemony in the Middle East would be another. The chatter and bickering that you hear on the other, smaller issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc) is just white noise designed to motivate us to root for our respective “teams”.

[Author]

Posts