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.
bdaman,
I try to stay away from claims like “They don’t want to hear”. I found that to be unnecessarily insulting to the independent thinking capabilities of intelligent people. -I think most people here are extremely intelligent (bias perhaps, but intelligent nonetheless.)
I’ve spent most of my adult life troubleshooting and determining the best course of action to resolve the problem. I tend to focus on what is important and relevant. -The items that you posted are definately of interest. However, they are not relevant to the constitutional qualifications of the Office of President.
Please don’t think I’m being dismissive. You have exposed some very interesting items. I just think the best course of action is to focus on the topic at hand.
They don’t want to here about his forged Selective Service card.
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/11/exclusive_did_n.html
They don’t want to here about acorn and voter fraud.
All they want to here is that, he’s the messiah, he can solve anything, he’s gonna be the best president ever. He’s gonna give me free health care and stop global warming. Don’t forget that all the muslims will love us now because he can unclench fist.
It’s our turn to spend the money you guys had your chance for eight years. You decided you wanted to spend it on war and military machines. We will spend the money how we see fit it’s our turn. If Bush hadn’t of stole the 2000 election in the first place Al Gore would have already taken care of all of this. It’s our turn to spend the money.
Jim they don’t want to here that. They don’t understand that Claire McCaskill tried to change the constitutions clause on NBC the evidence is here.
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1131&posts=4
They don’t want to here how some guy breached Obama’s passport file and was found executed. Obamas passport was the main target and info was erased. http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/brennan_passport_breach/2009/01/12/170430.html
They don’t see the connection of how Mccain was a puppet of thier distraction by tellin him, John buddy we want this to be a fair election and we are gonna back you up with senate resolution 511. Sen. Claire McCaskill [D, MO]
and 5 Co-Sponsors
Sen. Hillary Clinton [D, NY]
Sen. Thomas Coburn [R, OK]
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT]
Barack Obama
Sen. Jim Webb [D, VA]
How nice those democrats are just keepin the playin field nice and level. Oh and look there’s Claire again stickin her nose in a NBC issue. She wanted to do away with it and now what ever she can do to help ol Johnny out.
Jim they don’t want to here that. They don’t understand that Claire McCaskill tried to change the constitutions clause on NBC the evidence is here.
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1131&posts=4
They don’t want to here how some guy breached Obama’s passport file and was found executed. Obamas passport was the main target and info was erased. http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/brennan_passport_breach/2009/01/12/170430.html
They don’t see the connection of how Mccain was a puppet of thier distraction by tellin him, John buddy we want this to be a fair election and we are gonna back you up with senate resolution 511. Sen. Claire McCaskill [D, MO]
and 5 Co-Sponsors
Sen. Hillary Clinton [D, NY]
Sen. Thomas Coburn [R, OK]
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT]
Barack Obama
Sen. Jim Webb [D, VA]
How nice those democrats are just keepin the playin field nice and level. Oh and look there’s Claire again stickin her nose in a NBC issue. She wanted to do away with it and now what ever she can do to help ol Johnny out.
They don’t want to here about his forged Selective Service card.
http://www.debbieschlusseldotcom/archives/2008/11/exclusive_did_n.html I spelled dot out, JT doesn’t allow multiple links
They don’t want to here about acorn and voter fraud.
All they want to here is that, he’s the messiah, he can solve anything, he’s gonna be the best president ever. He’s gonna give me free health care and stop global warming. Don’t forget that all the muslims will love us now because he can unclench fist.
It’s our turn to spend the money you guys had your chance for eight years. You decided you wanted to spend it on war and military machines. We will spend the money how we see fit it’s our turn. If Bush hadn’t of stole the 2000 election in the first place Al Gore would have already taken care of all of this. It’s our turn to spend the money.
lrhf97,
“Natural born citizen” is a legal term of art. It’s not as simple as vaginal delivery on U.S. soil. It relates to an inherent belief of the Founders, that one whose father is a citizen will pass down the associated loyalty, as a supplement to the loyalty normally attributed with one who is born on the land. This is a two-part test for loyalty.
As Vattel states; “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.”
That makes a lot of sense to me.
You must think of this in the context of the time in which it was written into our Constitution. -We had just fought a war for our independence. This country was now ours, and as our lead negotiator with other countries, we wanted to make sure that the loyalty of the President was secured by using a two-pronged approach.
One of the little-explored issues relating to the controversy over Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president under the U.S. Constitution’s demand for a “natural born” citizen s the impact of his move to Indonesia as a child.
The implications of his move as a child to Indonesia and apparent adoption by an Indonesian citizen who married his mother are not clear.
Jerry Fuller and Mike Persons of the passport services division of the U.S. State Department say such a move for a child, coupled with the apparent adoption, could impact a child’s birth status.
That includes the possibility of a change in the listed location of the birth, a change in the names of the parents on the birth certificate, and others. Without a doubt, officials said, the result could be a dual citizenship if that nation recognized dual citizenship at the time through a stepfather. Indonesia did not recognize dual citizenship.
This document lists Obama as Barry Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia and his religion is listed as Islam. According to the U. S. State Department, “Indonesian law does not recognize dual nationality for adults over 18 years of age. Because of this law, U.S. citizens who are also documented as Indonesian nationals may experience difficulties with immigration formalities in Indonesia and furthermore, holding dual citizenship may also hamper the U.S. Embassy or Consulate’s ability to provide consular protection to dual national Americans. In addition to being subject to all Indonesian laws affecting U.S. citizens, dual nationals may also be subject to other laws that impose special obligations on Indonesian citizens. In July 2006 the Indonesian Parliament passed new legislation allowing children under age 18 to maintain a foreign nationality as well as Indonesian citizenship. Parents whose children hold both Indonesian and U.S. citizenship may experience difficulties with entry and exit immigration procedures until the new law is fully implemented.”
The question is, how does the fact that Indonesian law prohibited dual citizenship affect Obama. It certainly isn’t clear.
There is a further question about the implications of Anna Dunham also becoming an Indonesian citizen — what if the entire Soetoro family were citizens of Indonesia?
Mike S you said his ratings are fine given all the crap the MSM has floated out and the people will continue to support him.
The number of people who think Obama can improve the economy is down a sobering 19 percentage points from the euphoric days just before his inauguration. The same for expectations about creating jobs. Also down significantly: the share of people who think he can reduce the deficit, remove troops from Iraq and improve respect for the U.S. around the world, all slipping 15 points.
On overhauling health care, a signature issue for Obama, hopes for success are down a lesser 6 points.
Add it all up, and does it mean Obama has lost his mojo? Has yes-we-can morphed into maybe?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32049471/ns/politics-white_house
Jim,
I am not a lawyer, but from the info that i can put my hands on…
As long as you don’t have to naturalize you are a natural born citizen (hence 14th amendment wording “All persons born or naturalized in the United States…”). Natural born citizens can’t have their citizenship taken away, save for treason etc.(INA Sec. 349. [8 U.S.C. 1481]), they can, however recant (see recent gitmo case of USC “encouraged” to recant in order to be released), i imagine that is the reason for the distinction… if you naturalize there are still ways you can have it yanked against your will (INA Sec. 340. [8 U.S.C. 1451] ), therefore someone that is not a natural born citizen is not eligible lest something happen that strips their citizenship. how hard is this?
“Since Congress only has the authority to create uniform rules for naturalization (the process of making an alien a citizen), I believe they lacked the authority to redefine the definition of natural born in order to include John McCain.”
well, congress does have the authority to define the rules, and has in the INA, that make people born in states that weren’t part of the union at the date of the constitution natural born citizens … unless you want to say you have to be born in the eastern US to be a citizen at birth. In the INA Congress defines the eligible dates for localities bestowing US citizenship by birth, i.e. natural born (as opposed to those who have to “naturalize”).
I would consider THAT the authority to define “natural born”,”native born”, “at birth” or there would be a few more past presidents that didn’t meet the standard besides Arthur.
Sec. 303. [8 U.S.C. 1403] covers McCain (Canal zone births after 1904,.. oh wait how old is he? ahahah)
Sec. 305. [8 U.S.C. 1405] covers Obama as a Hawaiian birth after 1900
Here are ways you can lose it…
INA: ACT 349 – LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN
Sec. 349. [8 U.S.C. 1481]
Note the Wording…. “Native born” vs “Naturaliized Citizen”…
INA: ACT 340 – REVOCATION OF NATURALIZATION
Sec. 340. [8 U.S.C. 1451]
That is how i see it as defined. do you have reason to trump the INA? or are you going to try to take down the entire immigration & nationality policy of the US as established by congress in your attempt to say Obama isn’t a natural born citizen?
you seem to be going all the way back to Vattel because it suits you. There is more recent language clarifying this issue for the US made by OUR Congress. BTW the more recent amdendments don’t render the clause inoperative, they clarify. the Law of Nations is binding as definition why and how? sounds a little bizarre to say the US Congress can’t define Natural Born but some Frenchman can for once and always. Even more bizzare after the recent comments of GOP senators warning Sotomayor about consulting any foriegn law in deciding matters involving the US Constitution.
UNLESS your entire point is that he was a born via c-section, and is therefore not natural born, and if that is the case then i (might) give up.
FFLEO,
I read that yesterday after you posted the link.
If an unconstitutional act is so from the beginning, and therefore, any official act performed by the (acting) President would not have valid; how do we undo time?
Mike Spindell & Jim Byrne,
Have you had a chance to read this detailed information at the link below? If not, it would be well worth your time. Remember that Pres. Obama is not the first non-Constitutional Natural Born Citizen to become president; Pres. Chester A. Arthur was the first.
Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer
Last revised: June 5, 2009
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
bdaman said “Did you comment on stories over at newsvine on the BC issues?”
Not that I can recall. If you’re talking about something recent; I don’t think so. –I’m getting old, but I think I would remember. (at least I hope so)
Mike S. said; “given that this is not, nor never has been a legal issue”
There’s where you went wrong Mike. This is a legal issue. I fully believe that you don’t think it is, but you are confused. You’re more than happy to abide by our Constitution when it supports your needs, but when it imposes a restriction that you consider to be unfair, you’re more than happy to trash it.
What’s the difference between the list of Plaintiffs supplied above, FFLEO, myself, and you? -Other than you, the rest of us operated/operate under the authority of the President. We took an oath to support and defend our Constitution from enemies, foreign and domestic, and nowhere in our oath did we swear to ignore the Constitution when it didn’t fit our needs.
“Do you believe that President Obama is legally the President of the United States at this present time, without any encumbrances”?
No. Given the information provided by Barack Obama, and Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen; I do not believe that Barack Obama meets the natural born citizen qualification of Article II.
I’d be kind of disingenuous if I believed otherwise; wouldn’t I? I’d be guilty of playing “the game” if I didn’t believe what I presented; wouldn’t I?
Since I am not in a position to make decisions for others, I don’t ask that anyone else take my position.
When you understand the obligation to ignore an unlawful (or illegitimate) order, you may understand my position.
Hey Jim B, I have a question for you. Did you comment on stories over at newsvine on the BC issues?
“BTW -I think bdaman was asking Mike A. or Vince to weigh in. He was interested in legal opinion.”
That is correct I was looking for Mike A and Vince. Vince has not posted one comment since thursday of last week. I hope he is ok #1 and #2 I like to here what he says.
But I’m glad you responded Mike S it gave me an in for my apology
“BTW -I think bdaman was asking Mike A. or Vince to weigh in. He was interested in legal opinion.”
Jim,
Perhaps you’re right and he was asking for Mike A, however, given that this is not, nor never has been a legal issue, but is merely a political one given highly dubious legal color in an attempt to confuse, I feel fully qualified to step into the breech.
“a SELECT group of people got to touch it and smell it. People say this group are non partisan. I don’t know that”
bdaman,
If you asked for my birth certificate what do you think you would get? Mine is long gone and all that is left is a copy of a copy. By the way the hospital I was born in in Brooklyn doesn’t exist any more. I am saying that I have seen more than enough proof and corroboration to convince me that this whole thing is yet another de-legitimization trick being paid for by the plutocracy.
“Mike I am sorry to say this but I don’t believe in the outcome of presdential elections. After the 2000 election and all the circumstances surrounding this one I think it’s rigged.”
There could be some valid reason to not believe that our elections are rigged. I sometimes suspect that myself. Other than Orly Taitz though what are “all the circumstances surrounding this one?”
“Mike this is about President Obama letting a situation he could of resolved long ago get out of hand.”
bdaman,
I wouldn’t have handled it differently if I was President Obama, actually I would have dealt with it less respectfully.
This is about propaganda games and not the constitution.
“The man is hiding something Mike and he is screwed either way now. He is losing the trust of the American people.”
bdaman his ratings are fine given all the crap the MSM has floated out and the people will continue to support him. The reason is that America has turned in its’ thinking, check out Ruy Texeira, who predicted this past election years ago.
“I believe that if the whole BC issue is settled then the two parents must be citizen will go away. People will be willing to move on and wait the next 3 1/2 years out.”
The settling of the BC issue even by SCOTUS will stop nothing, just as the settling of Vince foster didn’t stop the attacks on Clinton. As for 2012 the President will handily win reelection, unless the wacko’s in this country don’t get him killed. I lived through the deaths of both Kennedy’s and MLK. I know what the Plutocratic Hate machine can resort to if they think they’re being thwarted. The real problem is this group is more crazy and bloodthirsty than they were in my youth.
Bdaman,
However, a final word. I’m well aware that both party’s are controlled by money and that money controls the country. There is a difference in outlook though by the plutocrats who run this country. That difference is that one side believes in fully screwing the people to enrich themselves and the other side believes that if you give a little to the people the whole thing will function better. sort of like the difference between France and England before the French Revolution.
Until we’re in a position to get rid of the plutocrats in general, with the prayer of the Who about not being fooled again if we do, then I would prefer having the Democrats in power. The Republican’s are far too greedy and murderous and have in their greed destroyed this country’s most important asset, our industrial base. Bill Clinton, of course helped with that, but essentially it was that dumb “B” Movie actor, his minions and GE, followed by GHW Bush, who turned us into Hessians in Iraq I and GW Bush into war criminals in Iraq II.
Jim,
How about this construction? Do you believe that President Obama is legally the President of the United States at this present time, without any encumbrances. Is that more clear? Remember this thread discusses whether these officers are legally obligated to follow the President’s orders and their suit alleges that he lacks the authority because he was not eligible to be President and is thus not legally President.
Mike S said, Even though you and I agree on some things and strongly disagree on others, I feel we have engaged each other fairly and have had constructive debate. Say what one will about you, I believe that you honestly try to engage with people and I respect that.
Mike thanks, I’ve been debating whether or not to respond and I just wanted to say I’m sorry about last week. I sincerley apologize for my outburst. I do play games Mike or try to be funny, lifes to short. There are other times when I get serious and get to the nuts and bolts. Here’s the thing, you said,
Quote: You can go on line and see a copy of President Obama’s birth
certificate. You have Hawaiian officials attesting to its’ validity.Un Quote
But thats the whole point, a SELECT group of people got to touch it and smell it. People say this group are non partisan. I don’t know that. Then the COLB is pasted all over the internet and people say see, I told you he was born here. Then we have the statement from Hawaii which stopped short of confirming anything.
The official statement says we have seen and verified that we have President Obama’s original certificate in accordance to state policy and procedure. It would of been nice if they would of added that, IT CONFIRMS HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII. It doesn’t read it yourself and tell me what it confirms.
Mike I am sorry to say this but I don’t believe in the outcome of presdential elections. After the 2000 election and all the circumstances surrounding this one I think it’s rigged. I don’t believe he was duly elected as much as I do he was duly selected. I’ve said it before, until there is proof beyond a resonable doubt I will continue to believe that.
You said, The reason for this is that this is not about whether the President is a “natural born” citizen, it is about de-legitimizing him as President.
Mike this is about President Obama letting a situation he could of resolved long ago get out of hand.
The man is hiding something Mike and he is screwed either way now. He is losing the trust of the American people. He is damned if you do damned if you don’t. If he releases the BC now, people will say what the hell took you so long. If he doesn’t this issue will not go away. He will continue with a cloud over his head of distrust. I believe that if the whole BC issue is settled then the two parents must be citizen will go away. People will be willing to move on and wait the next 3 1/2 years out.
Mike S.,
“but what separates them out is a willingness to acknowledge that President Obama is duly elected”
Can one be duly elected, and still not meet the constitutional requirements to be President?
BTW -I think bdaman was asking Mike A. or Vince to weigh in. He was interested in legal opinion.
Jim Byrne 1, July 21, 2009 at 11:11 am
Slartibartfast,
“If any other construction would render the clause inoperative, that is an additional reason for rejecting such other construction, and for adhering to the obvious meaning.”
Opinion of CJ John Marshall, Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 175
********************
I have confusion about how this case, which was written in or published as written in 1801 or 1803 has any applicability to the current discussion other than the Sct has the last say in the interpretation of the laws of the land. As you will notice I do not write “SCOTUS” as it is a term that I did not learn to write with.
If you will look at history at this time “we had a great fight” amongst the leaders at the time and some centered about when the Sct was going to be called into “term”.
You cannot very well have a Sct make bad decisions for your administration if they are not writing opinions. That is also the case where it was stated that the Sct does not write advisory opinions as they are the supreme law of the land, yawnnnn.
Has anyone seen Buddha or heard from him?