Retired Major General Supports Litigation Over Obama’s Birth Status

225px-official_portrait_of_barack_obama53px-US_Army_O8_shoulderboard.svgThe 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.

1,202 thoughts on “Retired Major General Supports Litigation Over Obama’s Birth Status”

  1. Jim,

    I don’t know how many times I have to tell your dumb ass I never practiced in Kansas and I’m not disbarred. But it’s nice to see you’ve returned to the same level of tactic as questioning my patriotism, you propagandist Neocon hack.

    You want to talk about a day of reckoning, sport?

    It’s your type that’s going to be in the the rude lessons, Jimmy.

    You just lost and lost hard.

    I didn’t expect you to be a gracious loser based on past performance. I expected you to act like a prick which is exactly what you did. Thanks for proving me right again.

    It only goes down here from here for you, admitted propagandist. You might as well said you work for Dick Cheny and PNAC.

    Yeah, I really suck a logic and argument, Jim. That’s why I just nailed you. You should have just let it lay that Vince beat you. Hey, you’re the one who admitted you are an actual propagandist. I just delivered the coup de grace to the opening you gave me in your arrogance.

    Buh bye, Loser.


    (Vince, I hope I didn’t poach your kill as it were. I just couldn’t believe what he was stupid enough to type. It was a money shot.)

  2. Mespo,

    Since you like to be so philosphical, why don’t you tell us why it is so important for Obama to hide the name of the doctor who delivered him, and the name of the local registrar?

  3. Mespo,

    I haven’t seen you contribute anything to this debate.

    Perhaps you would do well to read the comments; then you can decide who is slinging mud.

  4. Birther:

    “He who throws mud loses ground'” and attacking the messenger does nothing to undermine the message. Basic logic and argument skills seemingly lost on you, but more importantly basic humanity–something Birthers have in short supply.

  5. I can’t believe the disbarred attorney from Kansas had the guts to come back around.

    Yes Budha, I’m talking about you.

    Why don’t you tell everyone about what caused you to lose your license? A little embarassed? I would be too.

    What’s the matter? Not much work for you? Even as a paralegal?

  6. Jimmy,

    What you just said is an admission to the charges above.

    You are nothing more than disingenuous propagandists engaged in an dishonorable enterprise. That you care not for winning the argument – and rest assured that ship never left the harbor – but insist on being belligerent and obnoxious on an issue you have lost on factual, logical and legal basis’s just shows that what Mike charges and I second is true.

    bdman may just be a rube who bought your Barnum act, Jimmy, but you were labeled propaganda troll from day one but the regulars who ALL saw through your bullshit. It’s refreshing you finally admit you’re a propagandist with an specific anti-Obama agenda. Now since Vince has proven that your claims are ridiculous and untrue, this begs the question of what could possibly be your motivation for continuing to make your wild claims after being so thoroughly discredited?

    Well, bdaman already screwed up and showed his racists side although he’s been claiming remorse. You should let him speak for himself. The proof of that remorse will be in the eating of the pudding. Because if he’s serious, this will be where you and bdaman part ways.

    Because I’m thinking racism is EXACTLY your problem, Jimmy boy. That and/or someone is paying you to be a propagandist – a lying distortionist out to mislead purposefully the public and create distraction from real issues.

    Because staying around being obnoxious solely for the “told you so” factor? That’s sad, childish and pathetic in the extreme. So which is it Jim? What are your motivations to keep flogging this log?

    paid schill,
    racist paid schill,
    childish pathetic churl and general jackass or
    racist paid schill childish pathetic churl and general jackass.

    Those are pretty much your options for motivation now that you have admitted you are indeed an actual troll.


    You need to doing some of that heavy introspection you’ve been talking about right now. You need to be doing it REAL HARD. It might help you get some sleep. And recall you can tell a lot about about a man by the company he keeps.

  7. If any of you think bdaman and myself are here to win you over; don’t flatter yourselves. We know you are far too partisan to ever be an impartial jury.

    We are here to refute your nonsensical claims.

    One day we will see Obama’s vault certificate. That day America will know the truth.

  8. Buddha:

    “Mr. Treacy performed here with honor and distinction…. Mr. Treacy’s example as aspirational as well. He was dogged, methodical, logical, passionate and on point but he never lost his sense of humor or his sense of proportion.”


    As to Vince, we have come to expect nothing less. Bravo.

  9. Mike A:

    Right you are to say that no obligation rests on the aggrieved party to “put the rumors to rest.” Rumors are the currency of busybodies and those with weak minds. You could no more put rumors to rest than put to rest those with these afflictions–they are simply too ubiquitous.

  10. Mike A.

    I find your argument persuasive.

    I say we preserve this thread like a diorama encased in amber. A display of Vince’s kung fu to be admired both in both form and function. A testament to persistence and precision. None reading to this point doubt the victor if they are possessed of the slightest wit and honest disposition both internally and externally. Logic and the rules of evidence win the day.

    Now that victory is secure, to further the play the game plays as you say. To debunk them and demolish their arguments is one thing. We risk diminishing the victory by lending them credibility in acknowledging this is even a discussion worthy topic any more.

    I’ll address the birther issue no more.

    Vince Treacy, I recently told someone out camera that you were owed a steak and a medal for your service on this thread. I meant that and more.

    To the regulars and Professor’s students, I’d like to leave this parting thought.

    All of the here regulars with law backgrounds have carried the yeoman’s load from time to time when the Art becomes the subject proper, but Mr. Treacy performed here with honor and distinction. While inspirational, all of the Professor’s student reading this blog should look to Mr. Treacy’s example as aspirational as well. He was dogged, methodical, logical, passionate and on point but he never lost his sense of humor or his sense of proportion.

    I’d be proud to sit co-counsel or square against you in court any day, Vince. I just know on the opposing days, I’d be bringing the A+ game or I’d be getting a thrashing.

    Mr. Vince Treacy, Esq., I salute you!

    (I invite the student’s who have gained the value herein to take a moment and express their thanks to Mr. Treacy for his efforts and example. He’s earned it. And it’s good manners. Make mom proud.)

  11. Slart the left said there were tens of thousands. The press secretary said what march. The park ranger service said close to two million and a record. Believe what you wish.

    From the first Federal dollar Acorn received up until the recent election, Acorn received approximately 56 million dollars. Now after the election Acorn was/is on tap to receive 10 BILLION thats with a B, of federal money, was lined up to run the census and as you well know, how you count the heads means which states receives the most money. Remember the republican nominee who withdrew from the Commerce dept when he found out Acorn was moving into the Whitehouse and was gonna run the census.

    Yea, Acorn may not be as powerful, but they were and could still be on there way. Let us not forget that the president first big “community organizer” jobs involved ACORN. The president also trained ACORN employees. He represented ACORN in court. The president worked with and protested with ACORN. His campaign donated $800,000 to ACORN this year for voter registration efforts in which they are now named in various voter registration fraud suits along with this recent scandal.

    ACORN canvassed for Obama this year. Is this the type of organization that should continue to apply and receive federal dollars? Should the president continue his meetings with this type of organization? There’s alot more to come on this and you will be surprised when it comes from the members of the community that Acorn is suppose to be helping. Go read my link above to Star Parker.

  12. Mike you and I both Know that if the scenario you put forth the fictitious person you speak of would call you a liar, come forth and provide information proving otherwise then sue you for defamation. If it was me I would just call you a liar tneh commence to beating your ass.

    In the case of the president, who was recently called a liar, as I have stated on this thread, a righteous man would come forward and say I know many of you have questions about my birthplace, I provided a COLB but you still doubted me, therefore I give you my long form proving once and for all, that I was born in Hawaii.

    The question about his status at birth, he himself along with Factcheck as you know, has already been discussed. Most people are focused on the Long Form BC. If that was provided and it conclusively showed Hawaii to be the place of birth, it’s over.

    Now ask yourself why the president of the United States would allow a constant and growing conspiracy that involves lots of time and money by the U.S. attorney’s office, his own personal money(There are claims of a million) and the trust of the American people to continue to fester when he could do the righteous thing. Seriously why would anybody let that happen.

  13. BIRTHER,

    Thank you for illustrating the phenomenon that I was describing to bdaman. You have thrown a bunch of facts, distortions, and logical fallacies at the wall and you are calling it a mural of a massive conspiracy. All of the things that you point to have been debunked or explained by (mostly) Vince on this thread and your overall implication (if (this was on the up an up) then (all this stuff wouldn’t have happened)) is a logical statement with no support whatsoever (and likely untrue) stated as undeniable fact. Do you really think that any rational person is going to believe all this crap? Especially when sitting right next to it is a thoughtful and thorough rebuttal of all your arguments and a debunking of all of your misinformation.

    Mike A,

    As usual, well said. As you can see, I will still engage with anonymous people (and, of course, I use a pseudonym myself), but I understand and respect your position. However, I think that it is important for misinformation to be called out lest any casual reader (as if any of those remain on this thread) wrongly believe it unopposed.

  14. After a while you just get sick of the misinformation.

    If this was all on the up and up:

    Obama would have released his COLB to the mainstream media..not the Daily Kos.
    Factcheck wouldn’t call the certification a certificate.
    Factcheck wouldn’t be lying about Obama’s dual citizenship.

    Obama wouldn’t find a need to keep the name of the doctor who delivered him, or the local registrar from the public eye.

    The Kenyan government wouldn’t be calling him a “son of the soil” of Kenya.

    His grandmother wouldn’t have said that he was born in Kenya.

    The Director of the Hawaii DOH wouldn’t be declaring that he is a “natural born American citizen”, when she his situation is still up for debate.

    What do you have to refute the evidence? An unsigned piece of paper, and the word of somebody who was an unknown before the 2004 convention.

    To not have a desire to see his vault certificate is reckless.

    If you turned your children over to a person with that little background knowledge, and your child was injured by that would likely be charged with criminal negligence.

  15. I don’t believe that there is an obligation on the part of anyone to “put the rumors to rest,” just as I believe that waiting for the connection of the “dots” is another way of saying that one has already bought into one or more conspiracy theories. Rumors are never put to rest; they simply go away when people lose interest.

    What has happened here is that we have permitted rumors, allegations, suspicions and slander to be treated as respectable subjects of discourse. We have made it worse by insisting that the subjects of rumors somehow prove their falsity. This is nonsensical and contrary to both legal tradition and American notions of fundamental fairness.

    Suppose that I started a rumor that someone with whom I have disagreed on this site is actually a pedophile who has been in prison and is using his anonymity to cover up his past and search for new victims. Suppose I then repeated the rumors on many different sites. Suppose I even created new sites devoted to pillorying the victim of my rumors. Then suppose I remarked that an honest person with nothing to hide would have come forward to prove that he was not in fact a child molester and would reveal his true identity, emphasizing that the victim of my rumors had failed to do that. Would I have the right to demand that the individual come forward and prove his innocence? Would I have the right to demand that it be proven to my personal satisfaction based upon my personal standards as to what constitutes acceptable evidence? Would I have the right to assert that the failure of the victim of my rumors to comply with my demands was itself proof of the truthfulness of the rumors? I believe that rational persons acting in good faith would agree that the only appropriate answer to each of the foregoing questions is “no.”

    Nevertheless, what I have proposed is precisely what has occurred. Every single site promoting assertions on the birther issue is anonymous. Every single individual linking to those sites is anonymous. Every single person on this site who has commented favorably on the birther assertions has done so anonymously. Prior to the advent of the internet, people who engaged in spreading rumors were regarded as cowards. I see no reason to accord respectability to an abhorrent practice simply because it is performed electronically. Therefore, I have come to a personal decision that I will no longer comment upon, or respond to comments, from anonymous bloggers citing to anonymous sources. I am not attempting to convert anyone to my views. I am simply stating my position so that my failure in the future will be properly understood for what it is, a decision on my part not to participate in what I firmly believe to be a dishonorable enterprise.

  16. Buddha,

    I’m a big believer that one should always use wine when cooking – added liberally to the chef as needed.


    You say that there are a lot of dots being connected – I think you are making the standard mistake of the conspiracy theorist: you find a pattern in a bunch of disparate dots and race to tell the world about your newfound truth never realizing that the picture you were looking at is a Rorschach test. It wasn’t the 2 million birther march (also, I’ll look at several different sources before I decide who’s number to believe about the size of the protests), and the idea that ACORN is an evil organization on par with SPECTRE or CHAOS is a delusion spawned in the fetid swamps of FOX news propaganda machine – how many times do you think Mickey Mouse voted? And, just so you know, Glen Beck is either a total nutjob or he plays one on TV (and the radio), he is not in any way a journalist or a source of reliable information.


    And we should just take your word, and the word of the DC bar and George Washington University at face value? Just how gullible do you think we are? I was personally alive and over one year in age for the entirety of 1971 and I never heard about you graduating! The search for the real Vince Treacy is just getting started folks…

  17. Since the question was raised by Slart, I will repeat what I posted two years ago, that I am a 1971 grad of GW Law. I am admitted to the DC Bar.

  18. Vince I know there is no requirement for that in the constitution but you got to put the rumors to rest. You see what happens with rumors is one person starts the rumor the next person expands it. Before you know it the earth is flat.

  19. BIRTHER,

    I don’t waste any time thinking about your question because I don’t believe their is any chance of it happening. If the SCOTUS ruled that Barack Obama was not a natural born citizen that would certainly effect my opinion, but I can’t think of anything that would make me believe (as in faith without evidence rather than proof) that the president is ineligible for his office. As a scientist, I’m always trying to be open to different directions if new facts warrant a re-evaluation of my analysis, but I’m not holding my breath awaiting the arrival of anything new in this case and based on what I know now, I’m confident that Barack Obama is the legitimate president. As for Orly’s evidence or lack thereof, I agree with what Mike A said (except for the part about judges’ patience which I have no knowledge of) from what I’ve seen of Dr. Taitz, it seems that she is either incompetent or corrupt and I have no reason to suspect that she is corrupt.

Comments are closed.