From The Robalution:
Well this is certainly odd. Yesterday, I posted a piece about a U.S. Army Reserve Major who was refusing deployment to Afghanistan. He claimed that Obama’s failure to produce an original, long-form Hawaiian birth certificate made him ineligible for the presidency, and therefore his orders were null and void. His attorney, Orly Taitz, filed a lawsuit vowing to fight the deployment unless Obama produced the documentation.
Late last night, with no explanation, his orders were revoked.
Taitz is trumpeting the development as a major victory, telling WorldNetDaily, “We won before we even arrived. 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.”
Major Cook has gone on record, claiming he wants to serve in Afghanistan but “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; 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,”
The suit names four people as defendants, Col. Wanda Good, Col. Thomas Macdonald, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Barack Hussein Obama, who is described as the “De Facto President of the United States.”
The complaint goes on to say “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.”
“Barack Hussein Obama, in order to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as president, basically needs only produce a single unique historical document for the Plaintiff’s inspection and authentication: namely, the ‘long-form’ birth certificate which will confirm whether Barack Hussein Obama was in fact born to parents who were both citizens of the United States in Honolulu, Hawaii, in or about 1961.”
That the military has revoked Cook’s orders has set a dangerous precedent, one he and his lawyer recognize. As a result, they vow to continue fighting for the release of the document in question. “We are going to be asking for release of Obama’s records because now this completely undermines the military,” Taitz said. “It revoked this order, but it can come up with another order tomorrow. It can come up with orders for other people. Am I going to be flying around the country 1,000 times and paying the fees every time they issue an order?”
“We’re going to be asking the judge to issue an order for Obama to provide his vital records to show he is legitimately president,” Taitz said. “We’re going to say, we have orders every day, and we’ll have revocations every day. This issue has to be decided.”
If, as Barack Obama claims, his Birth Certificate is in the hands of Hawaiian officials, and will prove his presidential eligibility, why won’t he simply ask Hawaii to release it? Even if that’s not standard protocol for the state, isn’t this matter extraordinary enough to warrant full disclosure?
The President’s primary responsibility is the protection of this nation. Now that soldiers have begun using his lack of a birth certificate as a reason not to fight, Obama MUST produce it. If he doesn’t, and orders of those who complain are revoked, he’ll set a precedent that decimates the chain of command.
I ask again: If Obama is going to ask young men and women to give their lives for their country, shouldn’t he be willing to give his birth certificate for it?
Why keep fighting it’s release?
– Robert Laurie