The controversy over President Barack Obama continues with an interesting twist: Maj. Gen. Carroll Dean Childers (ret.) and active U.S. Air Force reservist Lt. Col. David Earl Graeff are supporting the litigation. On July 8th, Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook filed the suit July 8th in federal court demanding conscientious objector status and a preliminary injunction based upon his claim that President Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States. He argued that, since Obama cannot serve as president of the United States, he cannot order him to deploy as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
What is curious is the decision by the military to suddenly revoke the deployment orders of Cook. That served to fuel the growing movement spreading this rumor. The government is now claiming that the lawsuit is “moot” since Cook doesn’t have to go to Afghanistan. Cook in turn has added a claim to this lawsuit that he was retaliated against for his lawsuit after he was terminated at Simtech Inc., a Department of Defense contractor.
The addition of a retired major general and active colonel will have more of a promotional and legal benefit for these litigants. It was an unfortunate decision to revoke these orders. The Administration should have fought the lawsuit on the merits rather than try to moot the matter. The optics are perfect for those alleging a grand conspiracy to conceal Obama’s birth certificate (which has been viewed as third parties) and hide his alleged foreign born status.
For the full story, click here.
Jim Byrne is a supporter of Buena Vista Mall.
“Then a Military Commission will be appointed to function as a care giver government until new elections are held.”
Buena Vista Mall is a traitor to the United States and I suspect an agent of anti-America terrorists.
BVM, I believe you are confusing the U.S. with Honduras. Keep your geography straight.
Hey you Obama fools:
I hope and expect soon Obama will be arrested by the military as an usurper, traitor, war criminal, forger, etc. At that time the members of Congress, et al who served as his
co-conspirators will be arrested too. Then a Military Commission will be appointed to function as a care giver government until new elections are held.
Vince T., Jim Byrne is misrepresenting once again previous posts on this blog. I specifically cited him to Blackstone and his response was that “citizen” and “subject” are not the same thing. I then explained that the Founders used the word “citizen” rather than “subject” because they were forming a republic rather than a monarchy. I also cited references to Chancellor Kent’s work and to that of Joseph Story, which he ignored. I asked if he had read any of the cases in the Cranch law reports citing Vattel, and he did not respond, meaning that he hasn’t read any of those cases and has no idea what the context was for any of the citations he refers to. To give Mr. Byrne a little bit more of historical context, but with the knowledge that he will ignore it, I refer him to the early North Carolina case of State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 122, in which the court noted that in the United States the word “citizen” is analogous to the word “subject” in the common law, and that our use of the former term has resulted from our changing the form of government.
Mike Appleton,
Thought you might like this:
Jon Stewart Eviscerates The ‘Birther’ Movement (VIDEO)
“In a lengthy opening segment, Jon Stewart took on “birthers” last night, mocking their internal leadership and the media figures and politicians who support them. ….”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/23/jon-stewart-eviscerates-t_n_243383.html
Just one further word to signify the stupidity of this debate by Jim, his pals the Federalists and the birthers. Monsieur Vattel was a good man and disciple of Liebniz, a great man and great genius. He was primarily a philosopher. A Natural Philosopher.
Natural Philosophy was a movement that gained impetus around 1650 all over Europe and Britain and was a reaction to the despotism of monarchies and religion. It was the springboard of the Enlightenment and the sciences and our Founding Fathers were predominantly followers and/or Natural Philosophers. It was from this modernist idea that sprang the American Revolution.
Jim and his pals use Vattel, but in truth are opponents of the Enlightenment and thus Natural Philosophy that spawned it. That is part of the age old American debate between plutocrats like Jim and the Federalists and people who are intellectual descendants of the Enlightenment.
This is not only the irony of this whole debate, it also highlights the ignorance of Jim and his birther comrades. Notice I used ignorance rather than stupidity. Jim is far from stupid, but he has little idea of the concepts he deals with, not out of incomprehension, but directly caused by the disability of not being able to see any point of view besides his own rigidly held beliefs. This is ignorance, whether it be in Jim, Anton Scalia, Robert Bork or even many Left Wing radicals like Howard Zinn. Unfortunately, in this dangerous world smart men who are ignorant, are ignorantly lethal.
Vince said; “In the meantime, birthers, please direct me to the long form vault birth certificates of G H W Bush and G W Bush showing date and time and hospital of birth, names of delivering physicians or midwives, names and birth dates and citizenship of both parents, and names of all family pets.”
I am all for both Bush’s providing their certificate of live birth. I’ll just on board, Vince. If Barack Obama is to provide his, all living former-Presidents should be required to provide theirs.
That’s reasonable.
Bob,Esq. said;
“And the STATE of Hawaii, i.e. acting on EQUAL FOOTING as the 13 ORIGINAL COLONIES, has certified that Obama is qualified as a Natural Born Citizen to serve as President”
Jim Byrne: “That’s an outright lie Bob. Hawaii has not certified that Obama is qualified as a natural born citizen to serve as President.
With Obama’s refusal to permit the Governor of Hawaii to release his birth certificate from the vault, I’m even willing to question his status as a citizen.”
Oh yes they did.
Sorry Jim, but Birth Certificates didn’t exist at the time of the framing or ratifying of the constitution; they didn’t come into existence IN THE WORLD until 70 years later. Thus your ‘added’ requirement of producing a ‘birth certificate’ to prove Natural Born Citizenship is wholly of your own making; since the Founders NEVER CONTEMPLATED IT NOR REQUIRED IT.
Accordingly, even if your claim is true, that Obama somehow blocked the revelation of this birth certificate, such alleged concealment of a CONSTITUTIONALLY IRRELEVANT DOCUMENT is meaningless in light of the STATE OF HAWAII’s standing to certify that Obama is qualified to serve as President.
STATES elect presidents. Accordingly, unless you can find a state that agrees with your allegations that Obama is not a NBC, it would appear you have no standing to waste word one to the contrary.
Your courtesies in connection with this matter are greatly appreciated.
Bob
“Where was Vattel used on the issue of natural born citizen at the Constitutional Convention?”
One need only look at the words in order to find the source.
I have repeatedly asked for presentation of an alternative source. None has been provided, and none will be provided.
Byrne: “I am posting for all the other readers of this blog….”
Very well written, and on this point, I agree with you.
Vince,
I am posting for all the other readers of this blog, not for you, and I address your posts only to correct them so that misinformation does not go unanswered, and my posts stand on their own merit, not on authority.
BVM,
You are a moron and a traitor and I assume that people will be coming to lock you up soon. Lucky for you it will probably be for a mental institution, rather than a Federal Prison. You don’t realize that you are calling for a military coup? You are really that ignorant.
“Records of the Constitutional Convention indicate that Vattel was recognized and used…even in the Declaration of Independence.”
Just to clarify for the readers, the Constitutional Convention adopted the Constitution, not the Declaration.
“Records of the Constitutional Convention indicate that Vattel was recognized and used…even in the Declaration of Independence.”
Where was Vattel used on the issue of natural born citizen at the Constitutional Convention?
Byrne: “Vince, did you vote for President Obama?”
None of your business. You don’t have to believe anything I say, anyway, since I do not care what you believe, or who you voted for, and I am not posting here for your benefit.
I am posting for all the other readers of this blog, not for you, and I address your posts only to correct them so that misinformation does not go unanswered, and my posts stand on their own merit, not on authority.
Vince said; “Byrne, is there any scholarly research in the records of the debates of the 13 ratifying conventions that has found any indication that the conventions considered Vattel on the issue of natural born citizen?”
DO you really want to go there? Are you willing to apply your premise to all things in our Constitution? If record of debate, at the state conventions, on a single subject of the Constitution, does not exist, or the origin of the wording was not discussed, are you willing to consider that portion to have never been ratified?
Debate -at the state conventions was limited to those particular provisions in which there was confusion or disagreement.
Just so you don’t claim that I wouldn’t answer your question; I have no record of Vattel, or any other author, being discussed at the state conventions with regard to the subject of natural born citizen. However, the U.S. Constitution was adopted as a complete piece of work. As such, we must look to the records of the Constitutional Convention. Records of the Constitutional Convention indicate that Vattel was recognized and used…even in the Declaration of Independence.
Very well said, Mike.
In the meantime, birthers, please direct me to the long form vault birth certificates of G H W Bush and G W Bush showing date and time and hospital of birth, names of delivering physicians or midwives, names and birth dates and citizenship of both parents, and names of all family pets.
What’s that? You say that no one has questioned their natural born status?
Well, I am questioning it.
Now, cough them up.
The synopsis posted by Mike S. pretty much hits the nail on the head. If one reviews the posts on this and other threads relating to the birther controversy, certain patterns emerge:
1. The accusers are all anonymous.
2. While defenders of the president’s legitimacy have cited numerous historical and legal sources, the accusers, including Mr. Byrne, continue to rely on a single statement from a single author on a matter wholly unrelated to the constitutional provision in question.
3. The accusers, including Mr. Byrne, repeat in verbatim fashion what is published on anonymous web sites, but never resort to original sources for any of their debating points. I would be willing to bet that Mr. Byrne had never even heard of Vattel prior to this controversy and has never read any of his work.
4. The accusers, including Mr. Byrne, refuse to respond to any questions posed by others, choosing instead to either change the topic or repeat what they have already said. There are a number of instances on this thread in which Mr. Byrne, after I and others had responded in detail to one of his queries, has declined to address questions posed to him.
5. The accusers make assertions which they know to be false. In the case of Mr. Byrne, he has falsely stated that the law of nations is the basis of the internal laws of this country. He has also falsely stated that English common law is not the foundation of American jurisprudence and constitutional principles.
6. The accusers embrace as a hero a lady with a mail-away law degree whose legal credentials are as phony as her hair color and who is already the subject of pending bar disciplinary proceedings in California.
7. The accusers wrap their arguments in the flag, claiming to be motivated solely by patriotism. As Samuel Johnson reminded us almost 300 years ago, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
8. The accusers have used emotionalism unfettered by logic to stir the anger of the ignorant and the fearful. Did anyone note the pathetic appeal of the woman in the Delaware town hall meeting video, a woman whose entire argument was the tiny flag she held in her hand, her father’s service during World War II and her own birth certificate issued to her, as she said, by the United States government?
9. The accusers have enlisted the assistance of the most wretched of haters, people such as “BVM the Unknown,” who openly call for a military takeover and who are so delusional that they actually believe that U.S. marshals will be ringing the door bell at the White House in a few weeks with an arrest warrant. In the past, such people were typically admitted for observation by trained psychiatrists.
But perhaps most galling of all, the accusers continue to insist that if the president had nothing to hide, he would simply “come clean” to satisfy their hunger for the truth and erase their fears of usurpation. What presumptuous nonsense! No man has either a moral or legal obligation to “prove” his innocence of the fabricated claims of lynch mobs. No man has either a moral or legal obligation to dignify bad faith by acknowledgment or response.
Reason and logic are the only tools for honest debate. We are fools if we believe we can engage in serious discussion of serious issues with the residents of Bedlam.
Byrne: “When did the people ratify Judicial Review?.”
I do not think you want to go down this road. You seem to say that the words judicial review are not in the Constitution, so they could not be ratified.
Then you say “At least in my case the words exist to be defined.”
What words? You claim that a NBC must have US citizen parents, or a US citizen father, or maybe even natural born US citizen parents. But those words are nowhere to be found in the Constitution, and were never ratified.
There is nothing that says the President must be a natural born citizen “born to citizens.” There is nothing in the contemporary records to support this. We know the framers were concerned about foreign born grown up princes or generals. And the 14th Amendment settled all doubts by saying that all persons born or naturalized are citizens. You are either a citizen by birth or a citizen by naturalization, one or the other, and if you are born here, subject to our jurisdiction, then you are a citizen by birth and a natural born citizen.
How do you find the meaning of habeas corpus in the Constitution? Bill of attainder? Corruption of blood? Marque and reprisal? Look at the common law. Even poor ignorant Apuzzi looked for the common law definition of natural born citizen. He just looked in the wrong place. He looked in Vattel for the common law. Vattel was not a common law authority.
The birthers are trashing the Constitution by trying to put words and requirements in it that are not there, and were never intended to be there. This entire parental requirement argument itself is less that a year old.
“Keep your stinking paws off my Constitution you damn dirty birthers!”