Obama birther claims soldier’s revoked orders will have ‘disastrous’ ‘consequences’ for the U.S. military.
Obama birther claims soldier’s revoked orders will have ‘disastrous’ ‘consequences’ for the U.S. military.
The reserve soldier who argued he should not have to go to Afghanistan because of far-fetched claims that President Obama is not legally eligible to be commander-in-chief has had his deployment orders revoked. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook filed a request with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia on July 8 seeking a temporary restraining order and status as a conscientious objector because he believes Obama is not a natural born citizen. Though the military has refused to say why the order was revoked, Cook’s lawyer, renowned Obama conspiracy theorist Orly Taitz, was spinning it as a victory. “They have no cards to play with,” Taitz gleefully told Military.com:
“Can you imagine what are the consequences? This is disastrous” for the administration, she said. “We’ll have no military. Because anytime any Soldier, any Sailor, any Airman does not want to follow any orders, all he has to do is call an attorney and say ‘I don’t want to follow this order because I question the legitimacy of the commander in chief.’ “
Cook, an Individual Mobilization Augmentee, had volunteered for a year’s deployment to Afghanistan on May 8 and his orders were issued June 9. But all is not over for Cook or Taitz. A hearing on Cook’s requests will take place Thursday in the Columbus, Georgia federal court.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I can’t believe that he actually won. What kind of message are they trying to send? So does that mean that the military thinks Obama isn’t the president? I don’t think we’ve heard the end of this debate yet.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:12 pmDo they honestly think this argument is going to fly? This is the most ridiculous thing I heard.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:13 pmSomething tells me these wingnuts are going to lose. This was all covered very well yesterday. Conscientous Objector status does not cover dislike of the Commander in Chief.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:16 pmDistrict of Georgia?
Birthers.
Bigots.
Same thing.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:17 pmHow un-American. They are going to bring down the military because of a bogus argument?
July 15th, 2009 at 6:18 pmGood gawd. This proves some of our soldiers are uneducated, stupid, and believe lies before they would ever believe the truth. *sigh* How embarrassing!
July 15th, 2009 at 6:19 pm““Can you imagine what are the consequences? This is disastrous” for the administration, she said. “We’ll have no military.”
leave it to a repuke to have a screaming orgasm over this kind of nonsense.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:24 pmCook, an Individual Mobilization Augmentee, had volunteered for a year’s deployment to Afghanistan on May 8 and his orders were issued June 9.
it was all planned for the show…
July 15th, 2009 at 6:25 pmAfter the hearing he will be arrested by the military police.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:25 pmWhere is this guy from? I read there were a lot of recruits who were members of white supremist organizations.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:26 pmAs a field grade senior Officer, Cook will get his a$$ handed to him on a plate — as well he should.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:26 pmWiz says:
“After the hearing he will be arrested by the military police.”
while they’re at it, they ought to throw ms. taint zone’s ass in jail for sedition
July 15th, 2009 at 6:26 pmAnother blog reported that he’s a reservist and he can refuse a voluntary deployment up until the date of it.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:27 pmStefan Frederick Cook filed a request [...] seeking a temporary restraining order and status as a conscientious objector…
he got neither.
he lost.
orders revoked. it’s done.
or should be?
July 15th, 2009 at 6:27 pmA hearing on Cook’s requests will take place Thursday
oh…
July 15th, 2009 at 6:28 pmHe has a right to have his case heard but he will not win so my question is why did he sign up in May for a year deployment when Obama was already president?
July 15th, 2009 at 6:30 pmMajor Cook volunteers for active duty then files a lawsuit when the orders are cut – can you get more flakey than that? He should be relieved of his Reserve Office commission and be shown the door.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:33 pmJust because his orders were revoked does not mean that’s the end of this matter. I have a sneaking suspicion that Cook’s military career is over.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:33 pmIf a liberal soldier said he was going to refuse orders because of doubts about the Florida election results, said soldier would have been shot on the spot. The Reichwhiners really do hate our soldiers.
(Please. No Pat Tillman comparisons. No one has suggested that Cpl. Tillman refused orders.)
July 15th, 2009 at 6:37 pmpete@18, And righty so. Bush technically didn’t win the Presidency in 2000 (not by the popular vote), but he sent our men to Iraq anyway.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:38 pmpete says:
“Just because his orders were revoked does not mean that’s the end of this matter. I have a sneaking suspicion that Cook’s military career is over.”
personally, i feel the remainder of the time he signed up for should be spent in leavenworth but that’s just me.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:38 pmMaj Kook volunteered. I suspect he did so just to pull the bs he did. The military revoked his orders as to not give this disgrace a venue.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:38 pmI’m no military expert, but what does the Commander in Chief of the U.S. military have to do with an individual’s deployment? Unless President Obama himself ordered the deployment, how does the President enter this picture?
July 15th, 2009 at 6:39 pmBig difference between a reservist pulling this and RA (Regular Army).
July 15th, 2009 at 6:42 pmThe guy is phonier than a three dollar bill. As someone said earlier, the whole thing was staged.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:42 pmMilitary.com has a vote going on this issue. If you click on the link you’ll see it a paragraph or two down in the article. What’s scary? The question is: What do you think about the Anti-Obama GI? Choices are:
1. I’d need to see the long-form birth certificate before I followed any of Obama’s orders too
2. He should be discharged for dereliction of duty. And the Army should be ashamed to have him wearing the uniform.
3. It’s obviously a lot of political posturing, as usual. Wake me up when something important happens.
Guess which answer has the most votes??? The first one!!!
Are you freaking kidding me???
July 15th, 2009 at 6:44 pmLooks like he might have lost his civilian job, based on some Kos stuff
July 15th, 2009 at 6:44 pmKmich718@28,
July 15th, 2009 at 6:46 pmyes i do believe it since military.com is the place cancervatives hangout pretending it’s “military service”
This argument is flawed.
This argument can be used to argue ANY decision.
“I refuse to attend high school, because I question the legitimacy of the teachers’ abilities.”
“I refuse to pay taxes, because I question the legitimacy of the IRS.”
“I refuse to follow this restraining order, because I question the legitimacy of the legal system.”
Anyone can use this argument. Hell, the judge could say…
“I refuse to hear the arguments from Orly Taitz, because I question the legitimacy of her abilities as a lawyer.”
Argument. Countered.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:47 pmRemember the good ole days under George Bush when the right wingers supported him right or wrong because they told us he was our president and we all should to show our patriotism and how much we love America? And remember when they didn’t care that George Bush had gotten an OUI at one point in his life, snorted cocaine, had 4 insider trading charges against him, how his grandfather financed the Nazis during WWII, or how his brothers have stolen more money from the American people over the years that CEO salaries & bonuses today look like chump change? All of this was completely acceptable! Oh, but now we see the same as*wipes believing lies about President Obama and don’t want to serve now!
Idiots.
Why don’t you two faced no good for nothing as*holes grab your marbles and head to Pakistan to join The Base of the Republic Party (al-Qaida) for crying out loud! It’s where you belong anyway.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:48 pmImagine that – an attorney whoring for media attention. And getting it. All based on lies.
PEACE
July 15th, 2009 at 6:48 pmThe other shoe hasn’t dropped just yet.
This thing is just getting started.
Sit back and enjoy the spectacle of the freeper holy rollers making fools of themselves once again.
That moronic major has destroyed his military career. I doubt that any of his fellow officers will have anything to do with him.
There are young single moms serving their third deployment in Iraq or their fifth
July 15th, 2009 at 6:48 pmdeployment in Afghanistan. This guy will get no pity from the soldiers.
Information about Obama’s birth certificate for the right wing neck drooling knuckle draggers who listen with their fingers in their ears and see with their hands over their eyes:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
July 15th, 2009 at 6:50 pmCan anyone find a picture of Stefan Cook?
Let’s get it out there on the intertubes for all to see.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:53 pmapparently, orly taint zone is a pretty shady character
July 15th, 2009 at 6:54 pmhttp://encyclopediadramatica.com/Orly_Taitz
@ 28: “Guess which answer has the most votes??? The first one!!!
“Are you freaking kidding me???”
Up to 42% for the second 40% for the first- and remember, anyone can vote and apparently this had had a lot of play at free republic so the vote is likely skewed.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:58 pmThey keep forgetting who won the civil war?
July 15th, 2009 at 6:59 pmIs Major Cook a holy roller?
I would be surprised if he isn’t.
This case has Dominionist holy roller stamped all over it.
These people are the repiggie base.
Keep that in mind whenever you might be tempted to vote for a repiggie for any local office. They all turn a blind eye to this stuff.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:00 pmOkay, let me get this straight. An officer bases his CO status and refuses to deploy because of his relationship to the Pres? Huh? I am betting that you cannot claim CO status because of issues with your the chain of command (if indeed this is at all germane); and, to refuse deployment certainly means a courts marshal. Lastly, as a soldier in the US of A you take a loyalty oath to the constitution and not the Pres. How is any of this a win for this opportunist officer or his moronic attorney?
July 15th, 2009 at 7:01 pmThis is the oath to which Major Cook raised his hand and honorably pledged:
“I,____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
Nothing in there gives him or any of the other nut jobs espousing this line of ‘birther’ stupidity an out to NOT do their duty if they insist on thinking that a piece of paper issued 48 years ago does not really exist.
Make a strong example of this idiot and his “legal” representation and put this silliness to an end once and for all.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:01 pm“They have no cards to play with,” Taitz gleefully told Military.com.
ORLY?
July 15th, 2009 at 7:02 pmAsk about Taitz’s motivations, and she’ll tell you about her background. She immigrated to the United States from Israel in 1987; before Israel, she lived in what was then the Soviet Socialist Republic of Moldavia. She says it’s her upbringing that initially caused her to be suspicious of Obama. “I was just like any other mom; I didn’t do anything different from any other mother,” she says, her accent turning mother into muddah. “And it’s just during this last election, I became really concerned because I came from a communist country. I saw the things that Obama is saying that really did not make sense and that concerned me. One, of course, that had to do with the all-civilian army. And I saw footage of children dressed in uniforms, saluting Obama and doing drills. That reminded me of young communists.
Has anyone seen the video she is talking about?
July 15th, 2009 at 7:04 pm#47. Thank you for straightening me out on the oath. I did a lousy job in vetting the oath –I took as fact another blogger’s version of this which left out the rest after “…allegiance to the same;” The oath as you cite makes MUCH more sense.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:06 pmDr. Orly Taitz, Esquire? I thought a ‘Esquire’ was a dude? That’s what’s on her web page.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:08 pmMaybe it’s just me, but Major Crock sounds like he’s trying to become the next Joe the Scumbag–I mean Joe the Plum Idiot…
July 15th, 2009 at 7:08 pm:|
Good riddance for insubordination. If he doesn’t want to serve, then throw him out of our military!
July 15th, 2009 at 7:08 pmDr@54, Yeah. It is fishy. This whole thing smells.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:10 pmRE: “Can you imagine what are the consequences? This is disastrous” for the administration, she said. “We’ll have no military.
MY COMMENT: I say Amen! Go nutters, go!
July 15th, 2009 at 7:18 pmThe funniest part iS….if President Obama and Sarah Palin were at the same press conference and Obama was asked to produce his birth certificate while Palin was asked to produce Trig’s birth certificate…ONLY PRESIDENT OBAMA WOULD BE ABLE TO OBLIGE.
The End.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:21 pmCook, an Individual Mobilization Augmentee, had volunteered for a year’s deployment to Afghanistan on May 8 and his orders were issued June 9.
This whole thing smells.
Why would anyone sign up and volunteer if they thought Pres Obama is not the Commander in Chief?
It makes no sense… unless it’s an orchestrated “scandal” meant to draw attention to their crackpot claims…
July 15th, 2009 at 7:21 pmOops! Somebody already said that.
I should refresh my screen more often ;-)
July 15th, 2009 at 7:22 pmOff-topic but…
Did anyone catch the clip of Glenn Beck completely losing his mind (…yeah…) and screaming at a caller?
July 15th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Check out these comments by the uneducated sector of America (members of the republican party):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2289990/posts
It’s the blind leading the blind, the stupid leading the stupid, and the imbeciles leading the whole parade!
July 15th, 2009 at 7:25 pmPlease post a link of it if you have one! Gracias. ;-)
July 15th, 2009 at 7:26 pmEnnuiDivine @60,
July 15th, 2009 at 7:28 pmi just heard it over at dlisted. between glenda screaming like a 12 year old girl at the 2:50 and michael k’s comments, i nearly wet my pants.
I have to wonder who’s paying him, and how much, to keep the birther bullshit floating on the pond. He didn’t think it up all by himself, I’m sure.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:29 pmHere’s the video link of Glenn Beck acting like the typical right wing bastard he is!…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGeZQrpZbjI
SEEMS TO ME “SOMEONE” HAS 10 MORE HEMORRHOIDS UP HIS A$S!
July 15th, 2009 at 7:36 pmMajor Cook, is going to regret the day he was born. The Army will make an example out of him, in more ways than you can Image.
The last thing the troops in a war zone need is to have a ‘COWARD’, in their ranges.
This Guy is trying to make a political statement, and it’s not going to work. He’s not the fist ‘FOOL’, who has tried to pull a ‘STUNT’, like that.
When President Clinton was in Office, an Army officer refuse to obey ‘ORDERS’, claiming Clinton was a Draft Dodger. That was Bu..S..t.
Did any soldiers refuse to go to Combat, because Cheney was a “5 DRAFT DODGER”, and he was.
The Military is short handed as is, they are putting Gays out if they admit to being GAY. Over 40,000 Troops have been severely Wounded, and can’t return back to Active-Duty.
This FOOL needs to be LOCKED UP, for “TREASON”.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:39 pmMedia Matters and News Hounds have articles commenting on the Baboon meltdown.
Use the giggles, Luke.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:44 pmBecause anytime any Soldier, any Sailor, any Airman does not want to follow any orders, all he has to do is call an attorney and say ‘I don’t want to follow this order because I question the legitimacy of the commander in chief.’ “
Give a man enough rope…or an attorney, for that matter.
Conscientious objection is not based on not wanting to follow orders; it is the refusal to participate in war as a combatant (or in support of that effort). He has no case and I hope he’s prosecuted to the fullest extent for the overtly staged hoax.
He just threw what remained of his career in the trash heap.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:03 pmThe man’s argument is not going to fly in court since there were alot of lawsuits filed in the Supreme Court with the same claim during and after Obama’s win as President. Those lawsuits were tossed and denied by the Supreme Court judges. Sure, he has every right to file a request. But, his request and the claim of Obama being a non-citizen is plain ridiculous just like the rest of the lawsuits that were filed with the same claim. I wonder if this same person would file that same request against McCain [if he were President] that McCain wasn’t a natural born citizen. Otherwise, this man is obviously putting a black eye and embarrassment to the military.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:07 pmProve to us he was born in Kenya….and don’t give us a copy of his father’s birth certificate, you know, the man who shares our President’s name: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA. Yep! Both named the same. Isn’t that neat, Neocon Neck Drooler?
July 15th, 2009 at 8:09 pmSome idiot says:
I will be happy only if Obama is prosecuted and jailed for fraud in regards to his phoney qualifications to be POTUS.
I will be happy only if Bush is prosecuted and jailed for war crimes in regards to his illegal wars as POTUS.
There, fixed it for you.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:09 pmCook is now out of work; fired from his civilian job. Now that consequence didn’t take long in coming. (Note I did not say “unintended consequence”).
http://washingtonindependent.com/51177/birther-soldier-fired-from-his-civilian-defense-contracting-job
July 15th, 2009 at 8:11 pmJohn McCain currently gets his healthcare free courtesy of the American taxpayer and he also gets free medical care through the military. He was born in Panama!!!! Someone, please arrest the traitorous thief who has used the American taxpayer for 708 years illegally!!!!!
July 15th, 2009 at 8:11 pmSorry Kay the Panama Canal Zone was a US. territory when McCain was born there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Zone
July 15th, 2009 at 8:17 pmI live in Georgia. I would love to go down and watch the spectacle unfold. Unfortunately I have a pressing engagement tomorrow. I am going to be raising my right hand and swearing that oath that Maj Cook takes so lightly.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:24 pmTypical of reightwingers to misread a situation…you mistake giddyness for nervousness…not your first mistake on this website…
:]
July 15th, 2009 at 8:30 pmWhy would he volunteer for something while Obama was president only to say he’d not go since Obama is president?
He wasn’t just picked randomly. He sent out a written request to volunteer. Apparently he changed his mind a month later? Seems more to me that this was his plan all along.
This whole thing is kind of fishy.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:33 pmHe has obviously proven to people who make these decisions that is is real. No politician of note is going along with it. People who know these things and have actually handled it have deemed it authentic.
I think it’s pretty clear why. Why give people like you an inch at all? Why add any credence at all to these “questions”? And let’s be honest, if he gave you what you’re looking for, you’d just move on to the next thing.
It’s amazing that things like this are what rile you guys up. I’d think you’d have something more substantial by now for a guy that’s so damn evil lol.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:37 pmkaty says:
Cook, an Individual Mobilization Augmentee, had volunteered for a year’s deployment to Afghanistan on May 8 and his orders were issued June 9.
it was all planned for the show…
No fooling. Why would he have volunteered to deploy to Afghanistan if he thought that Obama sending him there would be illegal? This was all staged by the birthers. But, if the unintended consequence is that soldiers who are being sent to Afghanistan can resist as conscientious objectors, I have no problem with it.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:40 pmOkay phucktard, here’s what I want YOU to do:
GO DOWN TO YOUR TOWN HALL AND REQUEST YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE (or to the Vital Records in your state if you can’t get it through your town/city). WHEN THEY TELL YOU YOU CAN’T HAVE THE ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE, BUT THEY WILL INSTEAD GIVE YOU WHAT IS CALLED, ‘a Certificate of Live Birth’, I WANT YOU TO COMMIT SUICIDE RIGHT THERE, BECAUSE YOU’VE BEEN SPREADING LIES ABOUT PRESIDENT OBAMA.
Okay? Now hurry!
July 15th, 2009 at 8:42 pmProud says:
As much as it upset you. Obama has not released his long form birth certificate, he has only released a certificate of live birth they are not the same thing. Just answer the question. Why has he not allowed the release of the long form birth certificate if he has nothing to hide.
Do you have the “long form” (meaning official version) of your birth certificate? I’m betting you don’t have it. The official version is kept by States, it IS NOT given to you under any circumstances. Let’s say that the states gave the original birth certificate to citizens and they lost the certificate. How could they ever prove they were a citizen?
The State of Hawaii has attested to the authenticity of President Obama’s original birth certificate. They even showed it to the right wing World Net Daily. So are you and your brethren going to claim that the State of Hawaii has entered into a conspiracy with President Obama?
And finally, Proud, how do you and your idiot friends get around the inconvenient truth that Obama could have been born on the moon and still be a citizen because his mother was a citizen when he was born?
July 15th, 2009 at 8:44 pmThere was a dispute as to whether or not he was born on the military base or in an outside hospital in Panama. Since you birthers have your conspiracy about Obama with zilcho proof to back it up with, I’m going to go out on a limb and say the Panama is a U.S. Territory where it’s citizens cannot vote in our elections, so therefore, McCain was born outside the United States. How’s that?
July 15th, 2009 at 8:48 pmjust heard on countdown – cook USED TO be employed with the government.
not any more.
heh.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:51 pmHere’s my birth certificate along with President Obama’s:
http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2009/03/04/president-obamas-birth-certificate-from-the-state-of-hawaii/#comment-39705
July 15th, 2009 at 8:54 pm(actually, it’s my son’s birth certificate)
July 15th, 2009 at 8:55 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
ProudMoron. You are disgustingly stupid. Hawaii officials have said they SAW his original birth certificate. The local paper printed a birth anouncement in Honolulu AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH. You are just a brainwashed parrot. You should be ashamed to be so stupid
July 15th, 2009 at 8:58 pmYou can see a snapshot of President Obama’s birth announcement in one of two Hawaiian newspapers, here:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
If you neocons have any friends in Hawaii, ask them to go to one of the large public libraries that has microfiche of all newspapers to verify this announcement is real. It’s very simple to do and you’re going to be very embarrassed when you find out you’ve been spreading lies once again!
July 15th, 2009 at 9:06 pmrepublicans hate facts
Where do you get military base out of Panama Canal Zone?
And what about people born before 1953?
John McCain’s father was born in Iowa, so that covers him in that regard. So your arguement does not hold water.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:11 pmAs noted above, no one born in America can get THEIR HANDS ON THEIR ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE, because it is property of the state in which we live. We are only ALLOWED COPIES OF IT and each state calls this certified copy something different. It’s a certifiable copy of the original or it’s a certificate of live birth. Both mean the same. Also….
….if my neighbor gave me all of her information so I could get a copy of her birth certificate, I still would not be able to get it because my only relationship to her is we are neighbors. Only next-of-kin can and even then it’s not easy to do. President Obama did not have to release his copy, but because the American Taliban is uneducated and listens with their fingers in their ears, he graciously did release it and it was certified by the REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR OF HAWAII as well.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:12 pmPresident Obama’s mother was born in Kansas, USA so that covers him in that regard, even if the wingnuts don’t believe he was born in Hawaii to a Kansan and a Kenyan (legally here on a school visa in addition to being married to the Kansan).
July 15th, 2009 at 9:14 pmCorrect me if I am wrong, But if at least one of the Parents is a US Citizen (Specifically the Mother) It does not matter where you are Born. You are automatically “Naturalized” by virtue of maternity.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:16 pmIf your mother is American and she gives birth to you in France, she has a certain amount of time (usually she has to check into the US embassy in that country) to make sure your birth certificate reflects you were born in the USA, even though you were born overseas.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:21 pmI have Two Birth Certificates. Army Hospital Birth Augsburg, Germany ‘64. Mother US Citizen (Dad Army Corporal). US Birth Certificate, German Birth Certificate. Parents did not have to do anything special. I had option to claim German Citizenship up to my 18th Birthday other than that, I am and always will be a US Citizen.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:34 pmHeh, should say ‘61 above.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:35 pmI guess I wasn’t born in the US. I only have a “Birth Certification” from the state of Missouri.
Since I obviously wasn’t born in the US and have never applied for US Citizenship, I guess that means that I am here illegally. So why am I paying taxes again? /snark
July 15th, 2009 at 9:45 pmRandomeChaos, here’s what currently is the rule:
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/overseas/overseas_703.html
Interesting….
“NOTE: Consular Reports of Birth are not available for persons born in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Panama Canal Zone before October 1, 1979, the Philippines before July 4, 1946, American Samoa, Guam, Swains Island, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the former U.S. Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands. Birth certificates for those areas, except the Panama Canal Zone, must be obtained from their respective offices of vital statistics. Panama Canal Zone birth certificates should be requested through the Vital Records Section of Passport Services (see address below.) The fees are the same as those for DS-1350.”
July 15th, 2009 at 9:50 pmOlbermann had an item tonight. Apparently the “good” ex-soldier was informed that he is no longer welcome on military bases. Only problem is that his “day job” **was** (past tense) for a private subcontractor to the military.
Ooooooopppppsie !
July 15th, 2009 at 9:54 pmActually, this is becoming very large in wing-land. And I know several people – who are Obama supporters and never questioned his birth certificate – that are scratching their heads as to why this hasn’t been resolved in a hi-profile way.
By that I mean, having a forensic person picked by SCOTUS evaluate the long-form document and very visibly address the case. And then, find a way to reject future cases with prejudice, forcing plaintiffs to pay all court costs and damages.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:56 pm. . .
should i waste a click on proud…?
???
July 15th, 2009 at 10:01 pmWhere did Proud go to? *looking around the room* I thought he had all the answers!
July 15th, 2009 at 10:02 pmCook, an Individual Mobilization Augmentee, had volunteered for a year’s deployment to Afghanistan on May 8 and his orders were issued June 9.
Election Day was Nov. 4th and Inauguration Day was Jan. 20th. Put this man’s a$$ in jail.
July 15th, 2009 at 10:03 pm. . .
he was voted down for
refusing to change his underwear.
* * *
July 15th, 2009 at 10:04 pmThe republican Governor of Hawaii confirmed Obama’s birth certificate.
There are two different Hawaiian newspapers with Obama birth announcements in them.
Barack’s birth certificate:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
My son’s birth certificate for you to compare to Obama’s:
http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2009/03/04/president-obamas-birth-certificate-from-the-state-of-hawaii/#comment-39705
July 15th, 2009 at 10:05 pmmargarine says to Proud-to-be-an-Idiot
As much as it upset you. Obama has not released his long form birth certificate, he has only released a certificate of live birth they are not the same thing. Just answer the question. Why has he not allowed the release of the long form birth certificate if he has nothing to hide.
I think it’s pretty clear why. Why give people like you an inch at all? Why add any credence at all to these “questions”? And let’s be honest, if he gave you what you’re looking for, you’d just move on to the next thing.
You are so right, margarine, that if Obama gave in to this question (though he has already answered it), the reichwing birthers would only move on to the next thing. I have, in fact, seen a circular asking for his records at Columbia University, his graduation thesis, his records at Harvard
July 15th, 2009 at 10:12 pmCollege, his Selective Service Registration, etc. First of all, I am a Columbia University graduate, and Barack Obama, then an Illinois State Senator, is listed in its book of graduates; depending on the major, a graduation “paper” may not have been required, and “thesis” usually refers to that for the Ph.D. Moreover, I am not sure if I could find my graduation paper easily after all these years. Furthermore, Obama went to Harvard Law School–not Harvard College, and the draft was abolished before Obama would have been of age for Selective Service Registration, which means it was defunct by the time he was that age.
Any more ridiculous reguests, Proud Idiot?
Lora says:
and the draft was abolished before Obama would have been of age for Selective Service Registration, which means it was defunct by the time he was that age.
Actually, men when they turn 18 they are required to sign up with the Selective Service
from http://www.sss.gov/FSwho.htm
“WHO MUST REGISTER
Almost all male U.S. citizens, and male aliens living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service. It’s important to know that even though he is registered, a man will not automatically be inducted into the military. In a crisis requiring a draft, men would be called in sequence determined by random lottery number and year of birth. Then, they would be examined for mental, physical and moral fitness by the military before being deferred or exempted from military service or inducted into the Armed Forces.”
While there is not a draft, all men (which I think is incredibly discriminatory) must register in case there is a need for a draft.
July 15th, 2009 at 10:20 pmMapleStreet says:
Olbermann had an item tonight. Apparently the “good” ex-soldier was informed that he is no longer welcome on military bases. Only problem is that his “day job” **was** (past tense) for a private subcontractor to the military.
Ooooooopppppsie !
Saw it, liked-ed it. HAHAHAHAHAHA he just messed up his career and is an ass to boot. Only in repug land could he screw up this much on his own. AHAHAHAHAHA
I bet he wasn’t a good leader either. his nic was goober.
July 15th, 2009 at 10:22 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Lefty Liberal says:
So why am I paying taxes again?
______________
Hmmmm… when did they start taxing welfare payments?
July 15th, 2009 at 10:23 pmI’d be willing to bet my life this clown is going to be court-martialed, convicted and kicked out of the service, if not sent to prison. I’m an Army veteran, and I know a little about the process. The revocation of orders is done as a matter of course to facillitate the judicial process. Once the Feds shoot down his request, this bozo will be prosecuted. He’s a major, so he has to have been in the service for a while, and in all that time he never made a legitimate claim for conscientious objector status, so his claim will be looked upon as frivilous (if not outright cowardly).
July 15th, 2009 at 10:23 pmAfter that, it’s a dishonorable discharge and quite possibly a ticket to Leavenworth…
birthers another name for idiots.
July 15th, 2009 at 10:24 pmOkay, Lefty Liberal, I was wrong about the Selective Registration, but, as someone who also graduated from Columbia University, I am satisfied by Barack H. Obama’s listing in a book of alumni that he is a graduate, too. I don’t need to see a copy of his degree or his graduation “thesis.”
Lefty Liberal says:
Lora says:
and the draft was abolished before Obama would have been of age for Selective Service Registration, which means it was defunct by the time he was that age.
Actually, men when they turn 18 they are required to sign up with the Selective Service
July 15th, 2009 at 10:27 pmThe Republic of Stupidity says:
The name says it all.
Are you so stupid that you don’t even know what /snark means? Yeah, I thought so
July 15th, 2009 at 10:28 pmThen may you continue to live in your well-deserved misery.
Proud to be an idiot says:
July 15th, 2009 at 10:29 pmI will be happy only if Obama is prosecuted and jailed for fraud in regards to his phoney qualifications to be POTUS.
Lora,
I’m not disagreeing with you, I was just pointing out about the Selective Service registration, and I do agree with your point about a “thesis”. I have never heard of a thesis being required for a bachelors degree, maybe a “Senior Project” or a “capstone” class, but not a thesis.
July 15th, 2009 at 10:32 pmradhika:
Why should President Obama make a big hoopla out of stupid shit? For your entertainment? Why?
He proved what was requested by the askholes! It’s never gonna be enough for racist. You should move on to things that really matter, like your next na meeting.
And you say this is big in nuttin land? What is large to you? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
July 15th, 2009 at 10:34 pmDo you consider Obama’s landslide big?
Lefty Liberal says:
Are you so stupid that you don’t even know what /snark means? Yeah, I thought so
___________
And apparently you’re so f-in’ dumb you don’t recognize sarcasm when you read it… right back at ‘cha, pal…
July 15th, 2009 at 10:36 pmIf these “birthers” had any significant connection to the reality-based universe, they would have seen the copy of Obama’s certificate online, they would have read the statement from the State of Hawaii that the certificate is genuine, they would have read and understood the birth announcement from the Hawaiian newspaper. And they would understand that the whole “Obama is not a citizen” thing is just a crazy red herring.
But they don’t have any significant connection to the reality-based universe, which is why they are “birthers”.
July 15th, 2009 at 10:40 pmGood point Lefty.
trolls I know Barack H. Obama (the ELECTED President) signed up for selected services.
trolls, stupid must by your spanish fly.
July 15th, 2009 at 10:41 pmLefty, I don’t mind being corrected when I am actually wrong. Thank you. I already have enough points for rebutting the circular demanding Obama’s various records, without the Selective Service Registration part.
Lefty Liberal says:
July 15th, 2009 at 10:43 pmLora,
I’m not disagreeing with you, I was just pointing out about the Selective Service registration, and I do agree with your point about a “thesis”.
Lora,
I guess it is the graduates of Yale (like GW Bush) that have bad reasoning skills, unlike the graduates of Columbia (like you and President Obama). ;)
July 15th, 2009 at 11:03 pmLefty (#132)
July 15th, 2009 at 11:07 pmI supposed I should feel complimented, but please don’t denigrate all Yale grads (I know some very fine ones) because of a vapid frat boy who got in as a legacy.
Lora,
Yeah, I know a couple of really great people that graduated from Yale (actually Yale Law). Just attempting a little humor.
I do have a quick question you might be able to answer. Have there been any other Presidents that have a degree from Columbia?
July 15th, 2009 at 11:14 pmPs., Lefty
July 15th, 2009 at 11:15 pmColumbia grads unfortunately include Pat Buchanan and Dick-head Morris. Not all of us has good reasoning skills any more than all Yale grads (John Kerry, Sonia Sotomayor, the Clintons) have bad ones.
Lora,
I didn’t know about Pat Buchanan. I’m sorry to hear that…
July 15th, 2009 at 11:16 pmLefty,
Pat Buchanan has a journalism MA from Columbia. I think he must have forgotten everything he learned there about good journalism.
July 15th, 2009 at 11:23 pmLora,
Here is a short list of politicos from my university:
Richard Myers
Pat Roberts
Sam Brownback
Marlin Fitzwater
Can you say “Right Wing”?
July 15th, 2009 at 11:26 pmI’m working from very dusty memory here, but there was a gap of a few years in the Seventies between the draft and draft registration. Registration was a (craven) Carter program in response to right-wing pressure, but it conveniently didn’t kick in for young males eligible to vote in 1980.
I’m 50 — born in 1959 — and I fell into that demographic registration gap. I don’t recall whether Obama (class of ’61) was similarly blessed.
July 15th, 2009 at 11:44 pmnojo@140
Draft registration was restablished in 1980, for men born after 1/1/60.
July 15th, 2009 at 11:57 pmLefty,
I am fairly sure that Obama is the first Columbia grad to become US President, though Eisenhower served as president of the university before being elected President of the country.
Lefty Liberal says:
July 16th, 2009 at 12:13 amLora,
I do have a quick question you might be able to answer. Have there been any other Presidents that have a degree from Columbia?
Well Joe is far more qualified then anyone in Bush’s line of succession, so…
July 16th, 2009 at 12:34 amI really hope this “birther” movement goes on for a LONG time.
It’s fun laughing at them.
July 16th, 2009 at 12:39 amThe proper venue to question a candidate eligibility to become President is either Congress or US Supreme Court. It is not for government officials to pick which leaders to follow. Also, under the US constitution, there are only two types of citizens. One is natural born and another is naturalized citizen. If Obama is not natural born as some lunatics argue, then he falls in the category of naturalized citizens. That could happen only if Obama went through the immigration process (green card and citizenship application) with Federal Immigration agency. Since Obama nor his family members didn’t do it after he was born, that would make him an illegal immigrant. So we have the President Of USA who has become an illegal immigrant suddenly, if we draw conclusions from the conspiracy theories by the right wing lunatics.
July 16th, 2009 at 1:28 amKayInMaine says:
——————————————————————————–
John McCain currently gets his healthcare free courtesy of the American taxpayer and he also gets free medical care through the military. He was born in Panama!!!! Someone, please arrest the traitorous thief who has used the American taxpayer for 708 years illegally!!!!!
KayInMaine says:
——————————————————————————–
CP says:
Sorry Kay the Panama Canal Zone was a US. territory when McCain was born there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Zone
July 15th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
There was a dispute as to whether or not he was born on the military base or in an outside hospital in Panama. Since you birthers have your conspiracy about Obama with zilcho proof to back it up with, I’m going to go out on a limb and say the Panama is a U.S. Territory where it’s citizens cannot vote in our elections, so therefore, McCain was born outside the United States. How’s that?
*************************
Interesting how some argue a ridiculous topic (Obamas alledged lack of citizenship) with another equally ridiculous argument (McCain’s alledged lack of citizenship).
How does that prove one’s argument?
Hmmmmmm
July 16th, 2009 at 1:37 amDr. Hussein Matt says:
——————————————————————————–
Tim Vaculik, s**k my balls.
Dr. Hussein Matt says:
——————————————————————————–
pete says:
If a liberal soldier said he was going to refuse orders because of doubts about the Florida election results, said soldier would have been shot on the spot. The Reichwhiners really do hate our soldiers.
Actually, the reich-wingers would be claiming libruls are infiltrating our troops and filling their minds with propaganda. Sadly, that is EXACTLY what is going on here. Radical reich-wing teabagging propaganda spewed by faux and am hate radio is like opium for these weak minded sheep. Cook deserves to be court martial and punished severely, but am hate radio and faux holds some responsbility.
**************
“The Reichwhiners really do hate our soldiers.”
AM ***Hate**** radio.
I see the kettle calling the pot black here? Seems you engage in hate as well “Doctor”.
July 16th, 2009 at 1:43 amLefty Liberal says:
——————————————————————————–
Some idiot says:
I will be happy only if Obama is prosecuted and jailed for fraud in regards to his phoney qualifications to be POTUS.
I will be happy only if Bush is prosecuted and jailed for war crimes in regards to his illegal wars as POTUS.
There, fixed it for you.
**************
Debating if the Iraq war (or any war) is “moral” or justified” is a fair argument.
However, please advise how you came to the conclusion that Bush initiated an “illegal” war?
July 16th, 2009 at 1:46 amP.D. says:
——————————————————————————–
pete@18, And righty so. Bush technically didn’t win the Presidency in 2000 (not by the popular vote), but he sent our men to Iraq anyway.
**********
Hate to break the news to you Bush did “technically” win the Presidency in 2000. Read the constitution. You can debate if the Electoral College is what we should do or not, however, until it is changed in our constitution, it is the law … technically.
You can also argue about the vote recount being stopped by the Supreme Court, however, before that argument can be defended one must consider that after the decision by SCOTUS was made, several major newspapers including the NYT went and sponsored a recount anyway. The results were not “binding” legally, but the consensus was that Bush still would have won Florida, and therefore won the election. No one was going to leave that question “open”.
July 16th, 2009 at 1:57 amSeriously! This soldier and his lawyer’s behavior is mutinous. The United States’ Uniform Code of Military Justice defines mutiny thus:
Art. 94. (§ 894.) “2004 Mutiny or Sedition.
(a) Any person subject to this code (chapter) who—
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
U.S. military law requires obedience only to lawful orders. Disobedience to unlawful orders is the obligation of every member of the U.S. armed forces, a principle established by the Nuremberg trials and reaffirmed in the aftermath of the My Lai Massacre. However, a U.S. soldier who disobeys an order after deeming it unlawful will almost certainly be court-martialed to determine whether the disobedience was proper. In addition, simple refusal to obey is not mutiny, which requires collaboration or conspiracy to disobedience.”
Wake up media! If you ignore or legitimize this soldier in the least, you are also complicit, and the First Amendment is not sufficient to hide your treasonous behavior behind. The only air time these guys deserve is that which they get when the floor drops out from beneath their feet in the gallows.
Where is the leadership in his Command? Where is Semper FI?Where are the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Where is the Secretary of Defence? Where is the Secret Service? Where is the FBI? Where is the Justice Department? Where is the Congressional oversight? Where are the People?
Write to your Congressman today!!!
God bless our President, God bless our military and their families, and God bless the United States of America!
July 16th, 2009 at 3:14 amWhen are these shameless birthers gonna give it up? There’s nothing Karl Rove and the Demon Corp could find that Hilary and team couldn’t find. They chased this lead all the way to Hawaii and found the announcement of Obama’s birth in the Hawaiian newspapers annals from the 60’s.
July 16th, 2009 at 8:41 amTechnically, George Bush wasn’t “elected” in 2000 so much as he was appointed. Where were the birthers’ complaints then after he sent 4,000 troops and thousands of Iraqis to their deaths?
Army. It’s a huge welfare organization for illiterate slobs who aren’t qualified to work at McDonalds.
July 16th, 2009 at 8:54 amwiley says:
Army. It’s a huge welfare organization for illiterate slobs who aren’t qualified to work at McDonalds.
July 16th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Is that what your frycook boss told you?
July 16th, 2009 at 9:37 amTaitz, a dentist with a correspondence-school law degree
Wow, she’s like a 2-for-1 deal. Get legal advice at the same time as you get your teeth cleaned.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:01 amLuckily, most of the soldiers who serve in our armed forces do so honorably.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:29 amTracy__5 says:
But it’s OK to run off to Canada.
July 16th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Actually, it isn’t. Canada is extraditing deserters and they are being courtmartialed and incarcerated.
No fact checking eh? Let me guess? Another fact challenged repug, eh?
July 16th, 2009 at 10:52 amWhat on earth does running off to Canada have to do with this thread? Aren’t you thinking about a different war that took place about 40 years ago?
Tracy__5 says:
July 16th, 2009 at 10:55 amBut it’s OK to run off to Canada.
wiley says:
——————————————————————————–
Army. It’s a huge welfare organization for illiterate slobs who aren’t qualified to work at McDonalds.
***************************************
You compare the Army to welfare?
So you are saying Soldiers are not required to perform work or service and just collect money by doing nothing?
The only thing in common is that taxpayers support both programs. People that serve in the military have to be prepared to give their life if they are called into active duty.
Many or most go into the service to better themselves so that they can aquire skills to take care of themselves and become productive members of society. Soldiers EARN what they receive.
Some look in the mirror and see Hope and Change, others look in the mirror and complain that society or “greedy rich people” caused their problems.
If someone goes into the service because they feel they are an “illiterate slob” at least they admit their short comings and are willing to do something about it to turn things around, and most succeed. What a concept, self improvement and responsibilty.
I wonder if you have the nads to argue your point in person to one of those “illiterate slobs”.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:58 amTP is focusing on this soldier because his excuse is, to use one of your favorite words, BS, that has been debunked over and over already.
Tracy__5 says:
July 16th, 2009 at 11:00 amI just find it amazing that TP loves to pile on this one soldier, but you don’t hear a peep from them condemning the hundreds who refused orders and ran to another country.
Someone needs to get their desertion facts straight.
1. Nowadays, Canada DOES NOT give asylum to American deserters.
2. They are extradited back to the USA for courtmartial and incarceration.
3. THOUSANDS, not hundreds of troops desert every year.
Do some fact checking by googling “US military desertions” before posting next time, eh?
July 16th, 2009 at 11:06 amSince you have posted here a few years ago that you haven’t volunteered to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan because you “don’t want to leave” your wife and children, I really don’t think you are in the position to condemn those who tried to serve in those wars and couldn’t take it, Mr. Chickenhawk.
Tracy__5 says:
July 16th, 2009 at 11:08 am#151
What about all of the traitors that are still hanging out in Canada?
the Canada thing is rather recent. Below is just a sample of hundreds if not thousands of examples.
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/535/1/65/
politicalaffairs.net=marxist thought online (from their own logo)
This is your source?
LMFAO
U.S. war deserter, mother of 3 must leave Canada
Last Updated: Wednesday, January 7, 2009 | 11:43 AM ET Comments586Recommend236
CBC News
A mother of three young children reported to be the first U.S. female war deserter seeking asylum in Canada says she’s been ordered to leave the country.
Kimberly Rivera is seen with her husband Mario, son Christian, 6, left, daughter Katie Marie, six weeks, middle and daughter Rebecca, 4, in this handout photo. (Courtesy of War Resisters Support Campaign)Kimberly Rivera said her request to stay on humanitarian and compassionate grounds was rejected at a hearing in Mississauga, Ont., and her family has been told to leave Canada by Jan. 27.
The former soldier moved to Toronto from Texas in early 2007 with her husband and two children after refusing redeployment to Iraq. In late November, she gave birth to a third child in Canada.
She had served in Iraq in 2006 as a gate guard at a forward operating base, according to the War Resisters Support Campaign. The advocacy group said Rivera is the first U.S. female war deserter to come to Canada.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/01/07/rivera-hearing.html
Imagine they allow other deserters to stay, but not mother’s of three?
Canada no longer allows US military deserters asylum. Get your facts straight, eh?
July 16th, 2009 at 11:14 amNo, I don’t know it. But I have to go for a while now, so please explain it to the others here if you can.
Tracy__5 Says
“I really don’t think you are in the position to condemn those who tried to serve in those wars and couldn’t take it…”
Those are not the ones who I am condemning and you know it.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:17 amTracy__5 says:
Where have I said that Canada allows deserters to stay? I applaud that Canadian government for kicking out these traitors.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Well, pretty funny that you don’t support actual WAR VETS who did serve, but choose to desert due to their consciences, after experiencing repeated war zone deployments, and term them “traitors”, yet you support an officer who volunteered to go so he could then refuse, in order to do the bidding of far right, extremists, by rechallenging what has already been proven.
http://xenon.arcticus.com/barack-obama-birth-certificate-image-tampering-analysis
Do you REALLY believe the CIA, Pentagon and other US Law Enforcement agencies would allow a top secret clearance to Obama if his birth certificate wasn’t valid?
If so, that says something about your intelligence OR your political partisanship.
Which is it?
July 16th, 2009 at 11:25 amTracy__5 says:
Slight revision. Those soldiers who had a mental break down I will give a pass to. Those others, however simply decided that they think the war was illegal and then decided to desert…they are traitors just as Cook is.
July 16th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
And YOU will be their judge eh?
LMFAO
When and where did you serve?
July 16th, 2009 at 1:15 pmThis guy’s argument is the same as refusing to go to Afghanistan because he believes the world is flat and doesn’t want to fall off the edge. Both statements of belief have the same truth value.
I read yesterday that he lost his security clearance and was fired from his job working for a national defense contractor. I certainly hope so.
July 16th, 2009 at 1:21 pmAt least those who deserted for conscientious objection, due to immorality of war, especially those who are WAR VETERANS and experienced it firsthand, do so out of their conscience, regardless of mental breakdown or not, and not for some bullshit, political and most likely racist, viewpoint, denying obama is a citizen, a clearly discredited idea, eh?
That being said, those who take an oath to serve, must do so or face the consequences…..as will Maj Kook…..though I’m sure he see it all as his big PAYDAY, eh?
July 16th, 2009 at 1:22 pmReply to Kay-in-Maine #115
I know all those sites, have used them to squash the arguments. Bt I think the reich needs to hear it fom an authoritarian source like a forensic expert picked by SCOTuS. Then future birthers could face charges for libel/sedition if the persist and penalties for filing harassing court cases.
July 16th, 2009 at 1:38 pmUSAF Security 68-72, including perimeter and convoy security=Bien Hoa/Long Bihn to Tay Nihn, III Corps…..69-70.
And, nobody’s getting “strung up”, eh?
Why don’t you do this. Google up “US military desertions” and “US military suicides” and see if you can figure out why these numbers are so high.
Then join up, since you feel so self satisfied in judging others, many who have served in war zones before they deserted and/or committed suicide.
Or, feel free to continue to spout hyperbole and judgement of others who have done what you have not.
Honor the warriors, not the war
vvaw.org
July 16th, 2009 at 1:54 pmivaw.org
RIGHT NOW THE RULES ARE:
anytime any Soldier, any Sailor, any Airman does not want to follow any orders, all he has to do is tell officers in his or her chain of command “I am gay” and he or she will be required to leave the military immediately…
This EXISTING loop hole must surely mean the end of the military.
July 16th, 2009 at 1:59 pmObamaNation may be on the verge of collapsing. The lie is about to be exposed. Only problem…look who we have as Prez if Obama goes. Prez Biden will be no better. It doesn’t really matter. They are only figureheads for the real owners of this nation, the ruling elite shadow government. Bottom line…if you don’t want to go fight the Bush/Obama wars (undeclared, so not USA wars) don’t enlist. If you go and die, you die for Bush/Obama, not the USA.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:21 pmTracy__5 says:
The military is subjective to the civilians in this country.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Duh, could that be why only 5% serve??
As I said, feel free to continue to denigrate others whom you know little to nothing about and whose lives you judge based on rules they subjected themselves to which you would not.
Discretion is the better part of valor.
And free speech too, eh?
LOL
July 16th, 2009 at 2:54 pmPart of being an honorable warrior is following orders. You can be a oonscientious objector just don’t complain when you get a dishonorable discharge and/or have to go to jail.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
For someone so eager not to serve, you certainly pretend to know so much about it, eh?
And so eager to support the mission, but not the warriors who have already served, unlike yourself….
I don’t see anyone on here complaining about receiving the consequences of their actions. The thread is about a crack pot, “birther” who volunteered for war zone service ONLY to denigrate his CIC by then refusing to go..
Typical politically partisan wingnut BS.
Your first comment was pure sarcasm about “running off to Canada”, no?
Do you realize there are all sorts of reasons to do so? Repeated deployments that take a toll on the vets and their families…..for instance the link above to the woman who HAS served in a war zone and now chooses not to….for her three children’s sake…..
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/01/07/rivera-hearing.html
You want her “strung up” eh?
Let me guess, you are a ‘compassionate conservative’, right?
You honor the mission, not the vets, but choose not to serve anyone but yourself….how noble!
July 16th, 2009 at 4:16 pmJust so ya know, since you cannot apparently glean it…..my point in asking you to google US military desertions and suicides was to point out that imho, anyone who participates directly in war zone operations winds up suffering some kind of difficulty as a result. Hence, the unbelieveable number of desertions and suicides of war veterans…..Combine that with those suffering from PTSD and other ailments like depleted uranium poisoning, etc….and perhaps you can understand that no one leaves war zone deployment unscathed in some way. Especially not those repeatedly deployed.
Honor the warriors, NOT the war.
July 16th, 2009 at 4:31 pm#190
Funny, how these chickenhawk war supporters always say, “my nephews” , my grandpa, my brother served….eh?
Wtf are you doing posting here if you don’t like the site and it’s pov?
Troublemaker, eh?
LOL
July 16th, 2009 at 4:34 pmTracy says: “desertion put the lives of their fellow soldiers at even greater risk….not a very honorable thing to do.”
July 16th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
I believe your refusal to join up and serve is putting our troops at greater risk.
July 16th, 2009 at 4:37 pmTracy says: How many time do I have to repeat that I am not questioning those who have PTSD, physical ailment, ect…?
July 16th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Keep repeating it until you own guilt overtakes your penchant for judgement of others. After all, if you’d join up, then our vets wouldn’t have to redeploy over and over, eh?
And as I said, NO ONE leaves a war zone unscathed, imho.
Get it yet?
July 16th, 2009 at 4:47 pm195
No, I’m saying your are a hypocrite for judging others over something you refuse to do yourself.
Eh?
July 16th, 2009 at 4:50 pmTracy__5 says:
——————————————————————————–
“Actually, it isn’t. Canada is extraditing deserters and they are being courtmartialed and incarcerated.”
I didn’t say they weren’t forcing the return of these traitors. I just find it amazing that TP loves to pile on this one soldier, but you don’t hear a peep from them condemning the hundreds who refused orders and ran to another country.
It’s probably because your example is an apple/orange comparison, and not an apple/apple one.
The ones who escaped to Canada fall under a *true* conscientious objector definition – since they opposed the war in Vietnam based on moral reasons.
Cook, OTOH, isn’t a conscientious objector. He’s just someone who’s making up a story to avoid serving because he simply doesn’t want to accept that Obama has a valid Hawaiian birth certificate.
July 16th, 2009 at 4:57 pm“The ones who escaped to Canada fall under a *true* conscientious objector definition – since they opposed the war in Vietnam based on moral reasons.”
Still doesn’t remove their traitor status.
I never said it did. It does however, influence people’s willingness to excuse their actions. It’s the difference between sending killer A to the Death penalty and killer B set free – because A killed in cold blood, and B killed in self-defense.
And actually, nowadays it *does* remove traitor status, since there is an option to legally become a conscientious objector while serving in the military. Too late for the Vietnam draft dodgers, true, but not for Cook – had he actually chosen to *use* a true conscientious objector reason.
July 16th, 2009 at 5:35 pmThis guy ought to be tried on the charge of insubordination, placed in the brig for his sentence and then thrown out of the military and totally labeled as a traitor. His service in the military is also recognition of the fact that indeed Obama is his Commander in Chief. Only the simple minded could come up with a truly stupid claim. Who knows what cowardice this idea covers. You know, wanting the benefits of being in the military but disobeying a lawful order. So let us not let him get away with it. The brig should be his immediate future and then we will see if he recants. For certain, he has no business in our military since he is an obvious subversive.
July 16th, 2009 at 6:13 pmIn answer to ranus69’s question below, I think Cook is a “birther” plant. He knew who the president is when he signed up in May and is doing this to keep up the birther argument, which has already been debunked over and over. But certain reichwing loonies are so upset about a Black president and one that lived for a while in a Muslim ocuntry to boot that they simply won’t give up.
ranus69 says:
July 16th, 2009 at 7:57 pmHe has a right to have his case heard but he will not win so my question is why did he sign up in May for a year deployment when Obama was already president?
Tracy says:
As if you have never judged others for doing a job you have never done yourself? So you have never judged G.W. Bush for anything he did as POTUS?
“After all, if you’d join up, then our vets wouldn’t have to redeploy over and over, eh?”
Maybe if you would have done a better job in Vietnam the U.S. wouldn’t have been over there so long, eh?
July 16th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
1. Uh, gee I DID complete my service and have the paperwork to prove it, unlike your hero, lilaWol.
2. WTF does how long we were in nam have anything to do with Maj. Kook?
And wtf does what our troops did following orders have to do with how long we were in nam?
I’ll give you this. You are consistent. Consistently off topic and consistently innane.
I’m guessing that you believe somehow you are serving by posting here on TP, eh?
LMFAO
You claim you aren’t supporting Major Kook, yet…here you are doing just that. Why else would you bother posting on this TP thread about his dumb ass?
Just another pathetic chickenhawk, calling other people traitors while supporting a cabal of oil/war profiteers who create unnecessary wars for profit and out our own cia ops for political retribution.
Too Funny!
July 16th, 2009 at 7:59 pmRight Lora,
Major Kook is akin to Joe the Plumber. Just happened to be in the neighborhood. The similarities are striking. Same debunked BS being repeated ad nauseum by the hysterical wingnuts. Same planted operatives. Same FAILED strategy….just like the FAILED neocon economic and foreign policies that have placed the USA in the situaton we find ourselves in now. And the same DUPES, bleating the same tired, debunked rw talking points that emanate from their unkkkle kkkarl’s “truthcave”….
LOL
July 16th, 2009 at 8:04 pmblah, blah, effing, blah, blah, blah
I have an exemplary military record—
aerospace control and warning systems operator
good conduct medal
expert marksman ribbon
two years in missile warning—SAC/NORAD
two years in a tactical control, a mobile ground radar unit, which was essentially air traffic control for NATO training pilots, during war games
My second assignment, I was stationed on an Army post. I had duty in the mess hall once—taking money and checking ids at the front. I worked with an army guy. I tried to teach him how to count change, to no avail. I’ve taught this to many children, so it wasn’t me. I watched him give an officer his twenty back, plus change for the meal. The officer didn’t correct him. Then, after I explained to the poor grunt what he had done, he tried to give me the til. I refused, because then I would have had to literally pay for his error. I was glad that the army was taking care of him, and those like him.
Army manuals are written like comic books. The army culture is dumb as a box of rocks. At the time, their literacy rate was 60%. It was 100% for the Air Force and Navy.
For entertainment on our post, some army guys enjoyed calling in bomb threats to the Air Force dormitory. Since we were often on terrorist alerts due to activity of the Bader-Meinhoff gang, we always had to clear the dorm when we got bomb threats. My roomate and traveling buddy always knew that if we made it across the post in one piece, we were good to go for the rest of Europe.
Common problems in the German community with the army included, rape, theft, offensive and drunken behavior in public, car and tank accidents—every other week in the Stars and Stripes, there would be a picture of a Mercedes flattened by a tank.
It is one more sorrow upon the sorrows the U.S. government has laid on Iraq and Afghanistan that these losers are being let lose on these populations with weapons, poor leadership, and even lower than usual standards for enlistment.
July 16th, 2009 at 8:17 pmDenigrating the entire Army for the actions of a few, eh? That’s fairly pathetic and not too “wiley” of you, imho?
July 16th, 2009 at 8:22 pmI suggest you look up the word “common” and meditate on its meaning.
July 16th, 2009 at 8:37 pmI suggest you look up the word moron and contemplate how you fit the description.
Denigrating those in our military is not an intelligent thing to do.
July 16th, 2009 at 9:21 pmWhile you guys have been calling everybody names and cussing them out the problem has not gone away.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:56 pmHow is President Obama going to solve this problem concerning his birth certificate? He needs to present it or the problem will become worse.
Obama’s birth certificate has already been presented–something your readings skills apparently aren’t adequate to understand. While I admittedly called two trolls names, I have not cussed anyone out here. And if you still don’t get it that Obama’s birth in Hawaii, a US state, has already been proven, I will happily call you an “idiot” or a “moron,” too.
blclem says:
July 17th, 2009 at 3:17 amWhile you guys have been calling everybody names and cussing them out the problem has not gone away.
How is President Obama going to solve this problem concerning his birth certificate? He needs to present it or the problem will become worse.
Tracy
You are an idiot apparently. Again, you try to change the subject of the thread, in this case to lilaWol’s disasterous presidency (and life).
Perhaps that isn’t off topic. Wanna show us ONE piece of paper proving he completed his service during the Vietnam war? Can’t do it can ya? (Cause his daddy purged those files before leaving office).
Therefore, he perfectly fits your description of “AWOL cowards”, eh? Only difference is that MANY of those you denigrate indeed DID serve repeated deployments to war zones, many being stoplossed beyond their discharge dates, (thanks to lilaWol), while he could not even bother to show up for his guard duty.
If you wanna pretend to be the hypocrisy police, police yourself….eh?
July 17th, 2009 at 10:00 amTracy, TP has the right to post what it wants to. If you want to read criticism of those who went AWOL to Canada, you ought to turn to some rightwing sites or start your own. Moreover, as someone else already pointed out, you are comparing apples to oranges. Refusing to be deployed because of some already debunked claim that the POTUS is not a US citizen is not the same as fleeing to Canada, even if the latter may be reprehensible in some cases, too.
Tracy 5 says:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:00 amAgain I am just pointing out the TP never posts anything critical of the AWOL cowards who retreated to Canada because the thought the Iraq was was illegal but seem to relish piling on this guy. I agree Cook is no better than anyone else who decided not to follow orders….again I am pointing out TP’s blatant hypocrisy.
Not to mention that those Tracy are labeling “cowards” at least joined up, something Tracy would not think of doing, and many have deployed one or more times into war zones already, eh?
July 17th, 2009 at 11:56 amI’ve read most of the comments out here. Frankly I’m amazed that 99% of you have your heads so far up your rectal cavities you most certainly would never see the light of day or the facts as they truly are. My advice is take 30 minutes out of your precious lives and do some research on the subject matter of this article. You could use, well… the internet to do your research. I hope that doesn’t put you out too much. If you’re too lazy for that, which I suspect 99% of you are, I’ll provide a good base for you to start with. You all have a real nice day…y’hear???
The following was written by attorney Leo C. D’Onofrio who’s argument that Obama has dual citizenship went as far as the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. D’Onofrio is truly an American Patriot in search of the truth and he is a true believer in the document that our Founding Fathers left for us that outlines our freedoms. Some of you may have heard of it in passing conversation, it’s known as the Constitution of the United States of America.
Natural Born Citizen – U.S. Constitution & de Vattel – explained
U.S. Constitution 1787
U.S. President
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
The United States Constitution requires that Presidents (and Vice Presidents) of the United States be natural born citizens of the United States. Therefore, it is undisputed that children of American citizens (plural) born in the U.S. are eligible to hold the office of President upon reaching the required age, and that persons naturalized as U.S. citizens after birth are disqualified from holding that office.
The special term “Natural Born Citizen” is used in particular as a requirement for eligibility to serve as President or Vice President of the United States.
Emmerich de Vattel
For the original definition of the term Natural Born Citizen, its meaning at the time our Constitution was written, one need only look to Vattel. Emmerich de Vattel was the most popular of all writers on the law of nations in America before, but especially after, the American Revolution. Vattel’s {The Law of Nations} arrived, shortly after its publication, in an America, which had already been greatly influenced by Leibniz. No later than 1770, it was used as a textbook in colleges. It was often quoted in speeches before judicial tribunals and legislatures, and used in formulating policy. Following the Revolution, Vattel’s influence grew. Vattel was cited far more often than Grotius and Puffendorf, in court proceedings, from 1789 to 1820.
Among those citing Vattel in legal cases and government documents, were Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Marshall.
Vattel’s Law of Nations – 1758, Chapter 19, § 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.”
I will repeat some of Vattel’s passages from above for emphasis.
· ‘The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” [The word parents is plural implying that both parents are US citizens at the time of birth.]
“The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children…” [This is a truth that works both ways. If your father was a citizen of country “A” when you were born, then no matter where you were born, country “A” citizenship passed to you.
“…in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen…” [In order to be of the United States, it is necessary that one is born of a father who is a U.S. Citizen.]
“…for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
ONE FINAL POINT ABOUT THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE.
July 17th, 2009 at 8:00 pmThe more I read Vattel (pictured above), specifically the passage which defines “natural-born citizen”, the more convinced I become that the framers understood Vattel much better than we have on this issue. I now am firmly convinced that the framers relied on Vattel’s definition when they included the natural born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.
Yesterday, I had a revelation as to what Vattel meant and what the framers intended “natural born citizen” to mean in the Constitution. It’s obvious that the framers drew a distinction between the meaning of “citizen” and the meaning of “natural born citizen”. A “citizen” can be Senator or Representative, but in order to be President one must be a natural born citizen.
It’s the difference between a fact and a legal status.
Whether you are a natural born citizen is a fact of nature which can’t be waived or renounced, but your actual legal citizenship can be renounced. The difference is subtle, but so very important. “Natural born citizen” is not a different form of “citizenship”. It is a manner of acquiring citizenship. And while natural born citizens may end their legal tie to the country by renouncing citizenship, they will always have been naturally born into that nation as a citizen.
Let’s take a look at Vattel’s famous text:
§ 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.
Two different sentences. Two different civil groups are being discussed.
Examine the subject heading given by Vattel, “Natives and Citizens”. Two separate groups of the civil society are addressed in the heading. And here is the start of the greatest proof that the framers relied on Vattel as to the natural born citizen clause.
In the passage above, the first sentence defines who the “citizens” of a civil society are. Vattel states; “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.”
In the very next sentence he describes a different set of people wherein he states, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
There are natives and citizens, just as the header says. All citizens are members of the civil society, but not all citizens are natives or natural-born citizens. A native can’t renounce his “nativeness”. He’s a native forever. He might renounce the citizenship he gained through being a native, but he can’t renounce the FACT of his birth as a native.
Vattel equates natives with natural-born citizens. They are the same. According to Vattel, in order to be a native, one must be born of the soil and the blood of two citizen parents.
He goes on as follows:
“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…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.
Some have argued that this passage indicates only one parent – the father – is necessary for one to be a natural born citizen. That is false. The above passage only mentions the word “citizen”. It says the children of the father are “citizens”, but it does not say they are “natives or natural-born citizens”. Vattel is discussing the legality of citizenship, not the fact of one’s birth as being native.
When Vattel wrote this in 1758, he wasn’t arguing for its inclusion in a future US Constitution as a qualification for being President. But the framers did read his work. And when it came to choosing the President, they wanted a “natural-born citizen”, not just a citizen. That is clear in the Constitution. Vattel doesn’t say that “natives or natural-born citizens” have any special legal rights over “citizens”. He simply described a phenomenon of nature, that the citizenship of those who are born on the soil to citizen parents (plural) is a “natural-born citizen”.
Citizen = legal status
Native or natural-born citizen = fact of birth which bestows citizenship.
Vattel also wrote:
“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.
Once again, he does not mention natives or natural-born citizens in this passage, just citizens. Furthermore, he states that the citizens may renounce their citizenship when they come of legal age. But nobody can renounce a fact of birth. The fact is true or it is not true. You’re either “born” a natural-born citizen or you are not. The legal citizenship which attaches to this fact of birth may be renounced, but the fact will be with you forever.
And it is that fact of birth the framers sought to guarantee for each President of the United States. The framers ruled that the commander in chief be a natural born citizen. Like Vattel, the framers purposely distinguished between “citizens” and “natural born citizens”. And to that distinction there can only be one effect:
ONLY A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CAN BE PRESIDENT.
According to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, the 14th amendment cannot make the natural born citizen clause from Article 2 Section 1 superfluous. If being born as a 14th Amendment citizen was enough to be President, then the natural born citizen clause would have no effect. According to Marshall, that argument is inadimissible.
President Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States whether he was born in Hawaii or not because his father, being a citizen of Kenya under the rule of England at the time of Obama’s birth, was a British Subject.
Thanks, Patriot, for telling me that I am not a US citizen because my father was not when I was born to an American mother in Los Angeles. Funny thing is that the US State Department easily gave me a passport, and HEW awarded me government scholarships for which only US citizens are eligible. Meanwhile, I have never been offered citizenship from the country in which my father, later a naturalized US citizen, was born.
July 17th, 2009 at 10:03 pmAmerican women didn’t even have voting rights in the period when the legal documents you cited were written. You don’t think some interpretation of the law has changed in the past 250 years or so, eh?
The following was written by attorney Leo C. D’Onofrio who’s(SIC) argument
BTW, smartypants “who’s” is the abbreviated form of “who is.” Ever heard of the English word “whose?”
Tracy__5 says:
——————————————————————————–
I agree Cook is no better than anyone else who decided not to follow orders….again I am pointing out TP’s blatant hypocrisy.
Whatever, Tracy. Feel superior in your inability to recognize motives behind the facts. Superficial decisions *are* always the best, right?
BTW, I’m still laughing that anyone seriously thinks people not wanting to serve because Bush lied in order to invade Iraq – a known FACT – is in anyway comparable to Cook’s not wanting to serve because Obama’s not a US Citizen – a known LIE. Methinks someone (named Tracy) should actually look up the word “hypocrite.” You’d find the situations do need to be comparable, which isn’t the case here.
July 19th, 2009 at 9:29 pmI hope that doesn’t put you out too much. I watched him give an officer his Sohbet twenty back, plus change for the meal. The officer didn’t correct him. Then, after I explained to the poor grunt what he had done, he tried to give me the til. I refused, because then I would have had to literally pay for his error. She says it’s her upbringing that initially caused her to be suspicious of Obama. youtube
July 20th, 2009 at 7:04 pm