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.

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.
The 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.

Tracy 5 says:
Again 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.

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?

blclem says:
While 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.

Denigrating those in our military is not an intelligent thing to do.

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.

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

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!

ranus69 says:
He 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?

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.

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.

No, I’m saying your are a hypocrite for judging others over something you refuse to do yourself.

Eh?