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.
Unless you believe in reincarnation
BTW, that is a real horse meat recipe absent the added funny parts. I bet it works well with beef too though.
Buddha thanks for the recipe I’m headed to the kitchen as we speak.
Slart although we are discussing one case now, Capt. Rhodes,there are other active cases, other than Taitz. No, I do not think that a good attorney would file a case without proof of the validity of the only evidence she has to support her claim? However attorneys also represent people who commit crimes and do there best to get a not guilty verdict or the case thrown out on a technicality. So it depends on what your definition of a good attorney is. For example I know an attorney that for 15 grand can get someone out of their 4th DUI and get their license restored. Is that a good attorney?
Sorry, to your first question. Slart to me there is alot that points to fraud. There are alot of dots that are being connected right now and I’m not alone. In case you missed it there were upwards of 2 million people that marched on D.C. this weekend. The momentum is building. Look at Acorn in which the President is so closely aligned. Voter registration fraud cases, now they been taped in three different locations over the sex thing. Glen Beck says wait til you see the one they release tomorrow. It’s all connected for me, this whole ordeal will be exposed once all the dots are connected. Somebody somewhere is gonna slip up and the truth will come out.
Since you birther clowns are supplying a nearly endless supply of dead horses, I found you a gift.
Pastissada
2 pounds dead horse meat, preferably beaten to death by people with little or no sense about the rules of evidence or much else
2 ounces lard or porkback fat, a fatted politician may be subsituted
2-3 carrots, cut into slivers
2 sticks celery, diced
1 large onion, diced
4 cloves
a dozen coriander seeds
1 bay leaf
1 clove garlic (Omit if you’re using fat from a Neocon Republican, causes highly energetic reaction much like using the much harder to find True Vampire fat. If you must use Neocon fat, safety suggests making this dish outdoors. Think “Flaming Deep Fried Turkey”.)
2 bottles Italian red wine, one for the sauce and one to drink while cooking, extra bottle may be used to club, er, sedate the politicians you are harvesting fat from.
flour, enough to brown the meat with
1/4 cup olive oil
salt & pepper to taste
1 Tbsp. butter kneaded into enough flour to make a small ball
paprika to taste
Slather the meat with the lard and slivers of carrots. Dice the other vegetables and put them, with the meat and spices (except the paprika) in a bowl. Pour the wine over everything, then cover and marinate in the refrigerator for three days, turning the meat occasionally.
Pat the meat dry with paper towel (keep the vegetables and the marinade), flour it, and brown it in the oil over a brisk flame. Add the vegetables. When they’ve cooked for a few minutes, pour the marinade over the meat. Reduce the heat to a simmer and cook for about three hours. Once the meat is done, remove it to a platter saving the sauce that has been formed with the marinade.
Return the sauce to the fire, thicken it with the butter-flour ball, and season it to taste with paprika
I do not know what part of the word “sole” that birther cannot understand.
There is nothing in section 25 that affects the sole power of impeachment.
BIRTHER, my problem is that Orly Taitz doesn’t have any proof. I don’t think that anyone expects her to publish her proof on the internet, but she has certainly welcomed the internet to publish her claims. On the other hand, one would expect her to submit her evidence to the court, but that hasn’t happened either. My belief is that it has not happened because she has nothing to present. I have no way of knowing whether she is a con artist or simply ignorant, but the judges in all of her failed efforts have displayed a lot more patience than any other lawyer of my acquaintance has ever enjoyed in a courtroom.
There is no requirement in the Constitution for height, weight, time of birth, attending physician or anything other than place of birth and age greater than 35, and Obama’s certificate says Hawaii, 1961. The Constitutional burden of proof has been met. There is credible, prima facie evidence that Obama was born in the United States in 1961.
They did not even have birth certificates at the time the Constitution was drafted.
All the stuff linked by Birther is old discredited news. He posted the old RSOL posting that includes a shot of the Rainbow letter. The yellow highlighted portion was written by the reporter, not quoted from the sister. This has already been explained to bda, and now it has to be explained to birther. To repeat, BOTH hospitals were named after Queens, and can be confused. That UPI posting was wrong, in error, and not factual, and that is why it was withdrawn; all that is posted is a captured view. Same with Snopes.
Of course, a hospital cannot answer questions about babies born in it because of privacy, but Kapi’olani’s newsletter proudly reprinted Obama’s letter of congratulations in which he said he had been born there.
“Vince, Support your claim. You can’t debunk rumor with personal belief.”
This has to be one of the stupidest statements ever to appear on this blog.
Example: Rumor, Hitler is alive and is writing under the screen name of bdaman.
Personal Belief: For Hitler to be alive today he would have to be over 115 years old. That seems a bit far fetched to think he is that old and writing in English on this blog, at this time.
Answer: You can’t debunk rumor with personal belief.
slarti said;
“Do you think that a good attorney would file a case (much less go to court) without proof of the validity of the only evidence she has to support her claim?”
I know this was addressed to bdaman, but I’ll answer anyway.
How do you know that Taitz doesn’t have further proof as to the validity of the document? Do you really expect her to put her entire case on the internet?
Is asked everyone, and everyone avoided the issue like the plague.
What are you going to do when the Kenyan government claims that Barack Obama was born there?
Vince,
Nice to see you back on your “sole power” rant.
The Constitution never granted Congress the “sole” power to remove the President…especially one that fails to meet the qualifications.
Further, certification of a President, that fails to meet the qualifications is an unconstitutional act; a nullity. Who has the power to review and make that determination? The Supreme Court. I suggest you take a look at the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Byron,
Maybe they just bought birther stock at Intrade. (Also, it’s Dr. Taitz – just because she’s an incompetent whacko is no reason not to give the dentist her due respect and spell her name correctly ;-))
bdaman,
When I referred to lawyers and non-lawyers on this site, I had no special knowledge of who is or isn’t on this blog. It seems reasonable to assume that a constitutional law blog has a fair number of lawyers in its posters and several posters claim to be lawyers or retired lawyers, including at least two who apparently post under their actual names, once of which appears legit to a cursory web search (but I admit I could have been fooled – who is Vince Treacy really?). I see differences in how some people respond here that I attribute to them being lawyers (as this also correlates with the people claiming to be lawyers, I’m comfortable with the assumption). If you don’t see a difference in the quality of legal scholarship displayed in the posts here, maybe you should try looking at this thread more objectively. My opinion (based in large part on reading this thread) is that Vince is right and the case will ultimately be dismissed (with a chance of some kind of sanctions on Dr. Taitz). Let me ask you another question (since you didn’t answer my first one): Do you think that a good attorney would file a case (much less go to court) without proof of the validity of the only evidence she has to support her claim?
The birthers should have raised their questions to their Member of Congress and their Senators last December, when the electoral votes were counted in joint session. They should have made their claims of usurpation back then. Failing that, they now have no constitutional resource other than impeachment.
If Birther really has one or more authentic Kenyan birth certificates (and he does not, because Obama was born in the United States), then he is in the wrong forum at the Turley blog.
He should send the certs to his Member of Congress, since the House has the sole power of impeachment, and the Senate the sole power to remove a President.
Even if a court found that Obama was born in Kenya (and no court will so find), it could not order the President to stand down. All it could do would
What are all of you going to do when the Kenyan government claims that Obama was born there? What then?
Mike Appleton:
are you saying the illustrious Ms. Tait is nothing but a scoundrel and con woman?
It sure is starting to look like that. Bdaman and Birther are probably just trying to get some bang for the bucks they sent her.
Mike Appleton,
This case is very likely different than any case that you have litigated.
While it is true that, in most cases, the burden of proof in on the plaintiff. This case is quite different, and I wish Orly would have pointed that out to Judge Land.
“Who has the burden of establishing that the president of the United States is not eligible to serve in his office?” Land asked Taitz.
Here’s the answer Taitz should have given in reponse.
The people, as John Adams inscribed in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, are ever entitled to demand of their magistrates an “exact and constant observance” of the principles of the Constitution, above all, to exercise no powers not granted. We may not, therefore, shut our eyes to the issue of legitimacy.
The burden is on a claimant to point to the source of his power—failing which, it is a usurpation.
Rauol Berger
The source of President Obama’s power comes from being the duly elected, constitutionally qualified president. He has the duty to satisfy the court of such.
Thank you Mike for your response.
Slart do you not read my post. In the post above your post I asked Mike Appleton that question. I am a non lawyer, seeing how you’ve been following this thread could you please identify the lawyers to which you speak. That way when I have a legal question I can ask them. I’m pretty sure Mr. Appleton is but not sure of others. Doesn’t matter if they are still licensed or practicing just at one time they were. Please tell me.
bdaman, Slartibartfast accurately answered your question on burden of proof. Apparently, the qualifying requirements involve the filing of certain documentation. That was done. Anyone wishing to contest the truthfulness of that must come forward with evidence that there was fraud in the qualifying process or that the candidate was born someplace other than what is shown on the certification papers. That is why I previously indicated that I would handle the litigation in an entirely different manner than Orly Taitz has done. She is consistently filing documents without lining up evidence in advance. Then she is unable to support her claims when she is called upon to do so. Whatever may be the merits of the claims, she has been completely incompetent in pursuing them. As you know, she’s even had problems with such fundamentals as valid service of process. I don’t know how much money has been donated for these battles, but until qualified attorneys are retained to handle these cases, the money is being thrown down a rat hole.
bdaman,
The candidate was certified as qualified to be president (you can tell by the fact that he’s been doing the job for 8 months now…). If someone (like Captain Rhodes) feels that this qualification was fraudulent, then it is up to her to provide evidence that this is the case. Since in everything I’ve ever heard from Orly, she seems to be trying to get the courts to verify Obama’s qualifications (which, in a legal sense have already been verified) rather that addressing her burden of proof, the judge’s comments lead me to think that this case will not end well for the good Dr. Taitz, esq.
I will say that following this thread for the last 15 years (or however long it’s been around) has been a fascinating window into how both lawyers and non-lawyers see the law.