Pentagon orders soldier fired for challenging prez Army warrior terminated from job after questioning Obama eligibility

The Department of Defense has compelled a private employer

to fire a U.S. Army Reserve major from his civilian job after he had his military deployment orders revoked for arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office.

According to the CEO of Simtech Inc., a private company contracted by the Defense Security Services

, an agency of the Department of Defense, the federal government has compelled the termination of Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook.

Cook’s attorney, Orly Taitz, wrote in her blog that Simtech CEO Larry Grice said he would try to find another position within the company for Cook, but nothing is currently available.

The Department of Defense does contracting in the general field of information technology/systems integration, at which Cook, a senior systems engineer and architect, was employed until taking a military leave of absence on July 10 in preparation for his deployment to Afghanistan.

“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,” Taitz wrote.

Grice made clear that it was Defense Security Services that had compelled Simtech to fire Cook, Taitz wrote.

According to the report, Grice told Cook “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.”

The Simtech CEO then discussed Cook’s expectation of final paychecks, without any severance pay, and wished the soldier well.

Messages left with Grice’s office had not been returned at the time of this report.

“A federal agency (such as the Department of Defense, acting through the Defense Security Services Agency) clearly violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if it takes or fails to take (or threatens to take or fail to take) a personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant because of any disclosure of information by the employee or applicant that he or she reasonably believes evidences a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety,” Taitz wrote.

Read More Here:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104044