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.
Mike S.,
What is “the rule of law”?
There are some intelligent people writing on this thread about their suspicions. I don’t get why you can’t get the concept that this is blatant propaganda, blown out of proportion by rich
kooks who would finance any campaign they could against any Democratic President or aspirant? This technique started in 1988 with Dukakis and Willy Horton and hasn’t abated since, as the cast of characters has changed. This is the techniques of the “big lie,” first named by Joseph Goebbels, which is that if you repeat any lie often enough, most people will come to view it as fact.
In that respect could somebody please show me where the “fact” came from the the President has spent million$ in lawyer’ fees to keep this hidden?
Childers denies being part of this suit. He claimed he signed up as a plaintiff on another motion and she “signed” him up on the Cook case without his permission.
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/779856.html
Do any of these “birthers” have any evidence AT ALL that Pres. Obama was born somewhere else?
I think the Burden Of Proof should be on THEM.
All of our Federal Government, including the Supreme Court, are certain that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen.
Why should a bunch of loonies call the tune? I think Obama should COUNTER SUE them for libel. Lets see what they’re holding, if anything.
Miserable Fools.
Ҥ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
The Law of Nations (1758), Book I, Chapter XIX, Section 212
Now, who thinks “natural-born” status has been resolved?
Former Federal LEO,
Seeing that the U.S. Constitution was constructed primarily to define State/Fed relations, as in the original preamble read “We the States…”, I thought the Obama/Citizenship issue was closed as soon as Hawaii settled the matter.
And BTW, what do you mean there’s no Santy Clause?
The Cook case is weird on a number of fronts. I knew bunches of Reservists in a previous government job and none of them were surprised when the government deployed them overseas for training or duty- it went with the job that you got deployed where ever the government wanted you to go. Unless that’s changed there shouldn’t even be an issue about it. That’s what a discharge with prejudice and loss of benefits is all about (for a refusal) or, if valid, a hardship discharge is all about.
Both government contractors and in-house employees have conditions of employment that have to be met. When you apply for a job or promotion with the government or a contractor (I’ve been both.) you get the opportunity to state weather or not you will travel.
The promotion announcements (in DOD and Intelligence) state that the position requires travel (though the language was moving to the word “deploy” when I left employment to distinguish between domestic and foreign.) and often which theater or country you would be expected to travel to and weather it was hazardous duty or not. They made it black letter clear not to apply if you weren’t prepared to travel. A deployment to a hazardous theater could effectively double your pay and some positions had as a wage-grading component and critical function that one travels to hazardous countries.
The only way not to suffer the ill effects of a later reconsideration on your part (which could be as little as reassignment, demotion if it was a matter of promotion, or as great as termination) was to be able to prove that a valid, legally recognized, life changing event transpired after you signed up and before you got your orders. That generally came down to some physical handicapping condition or family situation. That kind of proof was generally the proof needed to mitigate probable termination down to reassignment/demotion.
Those life changing events had to be obvious and/or disclosed at the time they happened to have some traction too, you couldn’t sit on a position for 4 years knowing that you couldn’t travel due to a family situation and not tell your chain of command. That constituted bad faith at least, and lying by omission if they wanted to bring that to bear..
Cook wasn’t blind-sided. Cook was just gaming the system, as I saw happen more than once personally.
jenbrooke,
The issue is *Natural Born* Citizen. View the video above posted by BVM.com and pay attention to the the case of John Sidney McCain III where the *both* parents statement is raised.
Overlord,
Should I be watching for the black helicopters now?
I just don’t understand what’s so hard to comprehend here about Obama being a citizen. He was born in Hawaii, that was proven, hence since Hawaii is (and was at his birth time) part of the US, he is a US citizen by the 14th amendment. This is regardless of parental citizenship.
Ask the children of illegal immigrants that were born in this country – they’re citizens. Obama’s parents weren’t even illegal – he was legally here, she was a citizen – but that doesn’t even matter. What is the only common exception to citizenship by birth – children of diplomats…certainly doesn’t apply. And whatever someone above said about -both- parents having to be citizens, that’s definitely not true.
Mike Appleton stated:
“Article II of the Constitution specifies that a president must be a “natural born citizen,” but does not define the phrase.”
________________________________
That is the crux of the problem and the cause of the ruckus. Why would the Framers of the Constitution make a special case for a *Natural Born* U.S. Citizen v. an ordinary U.S. Citizen? From what you are stating, it does not matter what Article II states, the birthers must concede to the 14th Amendment.
I have dealt with this issue of Congress not stating environmental law specifically enough and then leaving too much deference to the government to decide what Congress intended. The result is often disingenuous, arbitrary, and capricious decisions, which end up in costly/lengthy lawsuits.
The Framers erred when they did not clearly define the meaning of Natural Born Citizen.
rafflaw 1, July 19, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Jonolan,
The President did “prove” he was born in Hawaii. At least according to the State of Hawaii!.
Mike A.,
What is this about Sarah Palin being related to George the First? That is big news! Who was her mother then?
The answer to that question is classified as a state secret.
Shuuush, her mother is a secret. No one can tell that she is Georges half blood. The Force will be out and surround your dwelling with crafts that have strobe lights that appear to throb as they circle the craft. Usually they come in threes but no less than two at a time.
He mothers name is not Barbara nor can George’s be revealed either at this time. It is to be kept a state secret as long as it could possible endanger anyone alive that is familiar with the Kennedy assassination. That as well was conducted by the same people that have knowledge of the whereabouts of Sarah and Georges mother.
I hope not all was compromised as a result of the display of this message.
This is the end of this message.
Jonolan,
The President did “prove” he was born in Hawaii. At least according to the State of Hawaii!.
Mike A.,
What is this about Sarah Palin being related to George the First? That is big news! Who was her mother then?
the terrorist must be removed– i recommend waterboarding with acid
Mike A:
“We may have to tolerate irrational and unreasonable people in this life, but we need not indulge them.”
*********
Very well said.
“The addition of a retired major general and active colonel will have more of a promotional and legal benefit for these litigants.”
************
It has about the same effect as Lindbergh joining the America First movement. Big splash, little wave, and more revealing of the attitude of the member, than the efficacy of the cause.
Article II of the Constitution specifies that a president must be a “natural born citizen,” but does not define the phrase. However, the Fourteenth Amendment provides, in part, that all persons born in the United States are citizens. Hawaii became a state approximately two years prior to Obama’s birth. Therefore, if he was born in Hawaii, he is a natural born citizen of the U.S., regardless of whether both of his parents were actually from Krypton.
I am also bothered by the constant harangue that the president could clear up all of the uncertainty by simply producing his original birth certificate. First, whose uncertainty? Am I required to produce some sort of proof of a fact to satisfy the irrational speculations of people with an agenda? Since when does it become the obligation of the victim of a rumor to disprove the rumor? Suppose I were to use the internet to spread a rumor that Sarah Palin is actually the love child of the first President Bush and that her candidacy for the White House is being financed by a Bush-Saudi cabal. I am confident that I could eventually enlist many believers on the web. Does any rational person believe that it would then be incumbent on the elder Pres. Bush and Gov. Palin to submit to DNA testing to disprove the rumor?
Second, even were the original long-form certificate of Pres. Obama’s birth enshrined in glass and placed on public display in Independence Hall, the stories of forgery and duplicity would persist. After all, there are still thousands of Holocaust deniers running about, some of them on this site.
We may have to tolerate irrational and unreasonable people in this life, but we need not indulge them.
Don’t you think that the Bush/Cheney machine would have done the oppo dirty work after, for example, the ’04 Obama keynote at the Dem convention?
Seems like they coulda stopped Obama in the starting gates BEFORE the election.
This is going into UFO/Clintoon American Spectator bullshit.
Okay, put another way, every fool, imbecile, idiot, common person, or genius will agree that Obama is a U.S. Citizen.
However, the U.S. Constitution specifically states Natural Born Citizen–a more stringent requirement for POS. Is B.H. Obama a *Natural Born* U.S. Citizen? Yes, Virginia, he definitely is a U.S. Citizen, and no, there is no ‘Santy Clause’.
Rcampbell:
“Now, if you were going to try to subvert the American system would you really select a half-black man born in the early 1960’s of a white mother, give him a Muslim name and fully expect he’d become President of the United States?”
———————————————
you lefties are very crafty! lol.
Even I, as a non-left winger, think Obama is a US citizen by virtue of his mothers citizenship no matter where he was born.
Vince Treacy has laid this to rest a long time ago, give up neo-cons, paleo-cons, ultra-cons, acme-cons, pseudo-cons, faux-cons, sino-cons, anglo-cons, bi-cons, gay-cons.