Maj. Stefan Cook and Barack Obama’s Eligibility

A number of people have written and asked me to weigh in on the ongoing controversy surrounding a Florida Army reservist who has refused to deploy to Afghanistan, arguing that Barack Obama was born overseas and therefore is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States and cannot issue lawful orders, especially following a report from WorldNetDaily that Maj. Stefan Cook’s deployment orders have since been rescinded.

Some of you will recall that America’s Right was heavily involved last year in the birth certificate debate after I broke the story on the first lawsuit filed against Obama. Eventually, I stopped dealing with the issue, as my access to the court documents stopped after it left the Eastern District of Pennsylvania–where I work during the day–and as the amount of misinformation spread across the Internet reached a fever pitch. Now, with the story of Maj. Cook being brought up in various newspapers and by Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity, I felt it necessary to weigh in.

From the very beginning, I was more intrigued about the constitutional questions surrounding the candidate than I was convinced of the veracity of the claims, though like many Americans I was not satisfied with the information released about Barack Obama’s background. After all, the liberals had their chance to poke fun at George W. Bush’s college transcript (despite Democrat challenger John Kerry’s grades being decidedly more dismal), so it only made sense that we have the chance to peruse Obama’s records from Occidental College. Not to mention even more basic items surrounding his upbringing.

With these latest questions arising because of Maj. Cook, we should not be too quick to read into the rescission of the deployment orders, lest we place too much weight upon something that could have been done for a number of reasons. Nevertheless, I’ll argue the merits of nearly anything which reminds people that, regardless of the perceived issues surrounding his birth, we really don’t know much about exactly who Barack Obama is. The best insight we have, I’m afraid, can be obtained by looking at the people he puts his own faith in, like the wife who only became proud of her country after her husband’s candidacy began to gain momentum, or the Supreme Court nominee who holds identity politics and “social justice” in higher esteem than the Constitution and the rule of law.

When it comes to the issue of what the mainstream press undoubtedly considers to be Barack Obama’s virgin birth, I share the opinion so concisely and perfectly expressed by Atlas Shrugs’ Pamela Geller: “BO, it’s so simple. Release the vault copy and put this baby to bed. What’s the problem?”

Indeed, whether you view the controversy surrounding Obama’s birth certificate to be undeniable, unassailable fact or a boneheaded, tin foil-heavy conspiracy theory–or anywhere in between–we all can agree that very few such so-called “conspiracy theories” can be resolved as easily as this one. Obama himself wrote about the vault copy of his birth certificate in one of his books. He must have it. Why not settle any questions once and for all. Why not, as Geller says, “put this baby to bed?”

I cannot tell you whether or not the claims asserted by those questioning Obama’s eligibility are true, just like I cannot explain with any confidence the reason behind the rescission of Maj. Cook’s deployment orders. What I can tell you, though, is that the questions surrounding Obama’s birth can be answered a whole lot easier than the lingering questions surrounding the trajectory of rifle fire from the Texas School Book Depository, or the mo’ai of Easter Island, or the inexplicable fame of Kim Kardashian. Given this administration’s aversion to promised transparency, however, I do not expect an answer any time soon.

In the meantime, I stand by what I wrote nearly eleven months ago, on Friday, August 22, 2008, when the news surrounding the first of the eligibility-related suits was heating up, and after I explicitly stated–as I still do now–that I could not attest to veracity of the underlying claims. In fact, after seven months of Barack Obama’s presidency, much of that piece seems more pertinent than ever:

Barack Obama’s actions show a penchant for blaming America first and placing Her needs second. His associations show that no unimaginably awful deed goes unrewarded, that the want for friendship, appeasement and superficial detente overshadows the need for a firm grasp on reality and unapologetic employment of common sense. His aspirations make us believe that we can live our lives blameless for societal and economic ills, and that centuries-old blood feuds can be solved with a handshake and conversation over coffee and a chilled plate of arugula.

John McCain, wrong on so many issues, was 100 percent right on Wednesday when he stated that he never questioned Obama’s patriotism, only his judgment. At a time when the United States faces unprecedented threats from every angle, within and without, at a time when Congressional malfeasance–or, in the case of Pelosi’s House and the energy crisis, nonfeasance–could have disastrous effects for decades to come, sound judgment is of the utmost importance.

For our founding fathers, unflinching patriotism, unassailable public virtue and unflappable judgment were inherent among those who helped to establish the United States of America, whether on the battlefield in Trenton or in Congress in Philadelphia, as those who were citizens “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” knew why they were there, what America was about, and why She was so desperately needed.

Regardless of whether he was born in Kenya or in Hawaii, regardless of whether his birth certificate is his half-sister’s or his own, or whether he went by the name of Barack Obama or Barry Soetoro, this self-proclaimed “Citizen of the World” has much to learn about what it truly means to be an American.

Share

Comments

  1. Lisa G in NZ says:

    For some good information on what is a NBC or what isn't, check out Mario Apuzzo's site. He also has an upcoming eligibility case quietly gaining strength. Check out: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/neither-14th-amendment-nor-wong-kim-ark.html

  2. Rix says:

    > I'm shocked by the Department of Defense's heavy-handed bullying of
    > the major's site of employment. It's like something that would
    > happen in some of the Third World countries I've visited.

    In case you failed to notice, we now *are* a Third World country. And like every self-respecting banana republic, we even have a black usurp… eh, I mean, President now.

  3. RoBoTech says:

    People, if you are like me and think it's INSANE that there is NO Federal or State agency that is mandated to check a Pres Candidate's eligibility!, I MAY have the Answer for this IN THE FUTURE.
    Although I am not totally convinced that Pres Obama is not Constitutionally eligible, the many cases that been dismissed due to the NON STANDING of American Citizens, Members of the Military, and Candidates to the same office is very disturbing, and quite frankly, INSANE!.
    It is INSANE that we can't challenge our own Election vetting process as stated in our Constitution!
    Rep Posey (R-FL) has introduced H.R. 1508 to the House. It would require any FUTURE candidate to present a validated Birth Certificate prior to running.
    It is eye candy for the Rep's next election. It will NEVER get out of Committee.
    HOWEVER, I have heard NOTHING on any of the 50 States presenting a similar bill to the STATE legislation.
    All it would take is for ONE State to do so. If the bill would mandate transparent document disclosure and vetting process that was reported to the Election officials of the State with each step of the process logged and validated.
    Also mandate that any fraud in the process would make the State Election Official legally and financially responsible for any damage to the State, this would be a giant step in the vetting process.
    Which we all know was lacking in Obama's campaign.
    ONE State denying a Candidate's application would stop the Candidate's National run. And the MSM would have to report THAT news!
    Again, I have seen nothing from the Grass Roots asking for support for this action!
    So, please, start emailing, snail mailing, phoning, and visiting your STATE politicians offices to demand a bill similar to Rep Posey's be passed in their STATE!

  4. Mick says:

    To Smrstrauss, the obvious Obot,

    "I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting."
    —Benjamin Franklin, letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775

  5. Mick says:

    To Smrstraus, the obvious Obot,
    Very good read about the Lebnizian origins of the Constitution and Natural Law (Vattel). Not that you care about the truth.

    http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/971_vattel.html

  6. PITIFUL says:

    This president blows.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Saying that the Constitution does not require that both parents be citizens has no bearing on the argument. Any opinion outside of a Supreme Court ruling is irrelevant to the legal argument.

    There are further complications. If you follow the born in the USA model for this argument you have to ignore that there are legal questions considered in international law surrounding issues of dual citizenship and loyalties. It has been possible in some states to receive a birth certificate if born of a citizen traveling abroad as a declaration of citizenship. In some states in the long form there are differences between a COLB and a Birth Certificate. Military personnel serving abroad since the 1970's had to deal with a confusing system of state managed criteria for citizenship, and issuance of birth certificates.

    It's way more complicated than it seems.

    The only way out is by Constituional Convention or Supreme Court ruling.

    It will never happen.

  8. Hugh says:

    To SMRSTRAUSS:

    The Founders did fully understand Vattel and did follow him concerning the natural born Citizen issue.

    The natural born Citizen clause requires a person to born in United States with both parents being citizens (natural born or naturalized) at the time of the child's birth. The 14th Amendment along with Section 1401 does not speak of natural born Citizen and therefore does not apply.

    You say:

    “Vattel said two citizen parents are required, but there is no evidence that the writers of the constitution followed Vattel. They did not follow him on some other recommendations, such as the establishment of a state religion.

    So, Natural Born has as its original meaning born in the USA (only the children of foreign diplomats are excepted) regardless of the number of parents. Then we added that two US parents could make someone Natural Born even if the child was born outside of the USA. But we never took away the original meaning of Natural Born, which was simply born in the USA.”

    From our founding to the present day every president, except for the founders themselves, had parents that were at least born citizens or naturalized citizens before or their children’s birth. Now, Chester Arthur failed to qualify since Leo Donofrio’s has shown the Arthur’s father did not naturalize to the United States until after Chester Arthur was born. Barack Obama Sr., the father, never naturalized to the United States, so he retained his British/Kenyan subject-ship or citizenship. Leo Donofrio has fully explained all this.

    You are misreading the 14th Amendment and Section 1401. A child born outside the United States becomes a citizen through naturalization. Naturalization is not the same as natural born.

    All natural born Citizens are born citizens of the United States, but not all born citizens of the United States are natural born Citizens.

  9. Hugh says:

    To RoBoTech:

    Check Oklahoma!

  10. Anonymous says:

    anyone who wants to be president WE ASSUME wants the best for America.

    if obama wants to do the best for the people WHY is he not complying to such a simple request.

    THIS ALONE tells you the man STINKS AND HAS NO RESPECT FOR ANY OF US.

    the Pentagon orders this soldier fired…..so what if 2,000 soldiers also question his eligibility and so on and so on… THE ENORMITY AND SERIOUSNESS OF THIS DESERVES A PUNISHMENT FOR OBAMA… JAIL HIM!!

  11. Anonymous says:

    born outside USA and becomes a citizen ONLY if parents applied for it and the child received it.

    additionally, just being naturalized is not the same as the requirement in our Constitution which stipulates the person MUST, no maybe, but MUST be born on american soil. Further there are other stipulations to weed out someone raising a child for the sole purpose of harming the country and that is why his mother never qualified as someone who could claim he was a citizen.

    additionally, where was his mother's citizenship when she died?
    SHE WAS A RADICAL and very possible did not want her child to be an AMERICAN. his mother was someone who definitely wanted MUSLIM CHILDREN. SHE MARRIED A MUSLIM, NOT ONCE BUT TWICE.

    COUPLE THAT WITH THE KENYAN's mindset of having his child born in Kenya. How domineeriung was he? did he insist on him being born in Kenya so she went there for the sole purpose of giving birth to satisfy his dad and then return to US?

    all these questions and we still have people ADMIRING and working with this man instead of being totally outraged of his audicity and LIES AND DECEIT!

    now we have an incident that is sure to blow the whole darn keg apart and blow it will. imo before this year is out obama will be out of office for deceiving the United States of America.

  12. Anonymous says:

    NATURILIZED persons do not qualify to run for president.

    i bet even michelle was shocked when she realized he couldnt produce a proper birth certificate.

  13. Anonymous says:

    now i want about 10,000 troops to do the same – all on the same day!

    lets see where obama goes from there – - back to Kenya? this country needs to put the man in jail. can U imagine the kind of information he is now privy to????

    he needs to be jailed and watched 24-7.

  14. Anonymous says:

    I've heard various comments from all over screaming, "It doesn't matter if Obama was born abroad! His mother was an American citizen and that's all it takes!"

    Here's how it REALLY WORKS. Obama's father is a foreigner and his mother is an American citizen. Check. If Obama was born abroad, in this case Kenya, his mother DOES NOT automatically bestow the status of natural born citizen upon Obama.
    Since we have to to throw out Obama's father, we must examine the mother under the laws of the time. At the time Obama was born, 1961, we determination citizenship according to the laws that existed at that time, NOT what's on the books now. The INA Act of the time,covering the years between December 24, 1952-November 13, 1986, said that his mother had residency requirements which must be met PRIOR to the birth of a child born abroad before he can be confirmed as a natural born citizen through his mother. At the time Obama was born, his mother had to live have lived for 10 continuous years in the United States with FIVE of those years being AFTER the age of 14. His mother was 18. If he was born in Kenya, Obama was NOT given natural born U.S. Citizenship retroactive at birth under the concept Jus Soli (law of the soil i.e. U.S. States, territories, military bases, embassies, the Panama Canal Zone) or under Jus Sanguinis (law of the blood i.e. through the parents.

  15. Kalani says:

    Back to the case at hand. Orly now has a moot case. Under this thread, I was the first one that pointed out the difference in military jargon between "revoke" and "rescind." I pointed out the word "revoke" indicated that the military was planning something of a punitive nature under the UCMJ.

    However, never in my wildest dreams would I ever have imagined that the DoD would pull a person's clearance — and make one ineligible for employment — BEFORE the person had his day in court. THAT IS ILLEGAL!!!

    If true that government — and not the employer who buckled under intimidation — forced the firing, there is something very, very wrong with the system in the Department of Defense. They stepped over the bounds of what is legal — and open to all kinds of legal action. I'm not sure if Major Cook has protection under the Whistleblower statutes, but there must be other laws that protect him.

    I know that talking about the "natural born citizen" debate is more interesting, but I am worried about a military man — a citizen soldier — who has just been hung out to dry by his government — and worse, his own people — the fellow soldiers in the Department of Defense.

    Orly,

    What are we going to do to support and defend Major Cook? WE, THE PEOPLE encouraged him to take this stand — and I am proud that he did. But now that he is in trouble, what kind of plan do WE take to protect him? I'm a retired military officer and I want to stand behind him — and I think a lot of other vets want to do so as well.

    Will you be the spokesperson for Major Cook? If not, who will be his lawyer? How can we contact him/her to provide any support Major Cook needs in his fight to protect his livelihood — a thing that was guaranteed by LAW as a citizen soldier when he was activated, but yanked out from under him in the most despicable manner.

    WE THE PEOPLE encouraged Major Cook to take a stand. WE THE PEOPLE have a moral obligation now to stand behind him.

  16. WE LOVE YOU MAJOR says:

    We need a PayPal button for the Major specifically!!! Not to Orly.

  17. Anonymous says:

    We must stand behind this brave patriot and see this through to the end! This is an outrage that should be on the front of every newspaper today, unfortunately we all know we have a better chance of seeing a Yetti today!

  18. Anonymous says:

    Kalani said:

    "They stepped over the bounds of what is legal — and open to all kinds of legal action. I'm not sure if Major Cook has protection under the Whistleblower statutes, but there must be other laws that protect him."

    Do you, Jeff, or someone else care to be more specific? Which laws, exactly, where violated by Cook's termination?

    Please keep in mind:
    1. Cook was an employee of a private company.
    2. Cook was not on active duty when terminated.
    3. Florida has at-will employment.

  19. CAN GO BY MANY A NAME says:

    Why do they call us 'birthers' and not 'college records-ers', or 'Indonesian passport-ers', or 'family death certificate-ers'????

  20. Rix says:

    > Please keep in mind:
    > 1. Cook was an employee of a private company.
    > 2. Cook was not on active duty when terminated.
    > 3. Florida has at-will employment.

    IF Florida has the same whistleblower protection law as New Jersey, it may be applicable. The problem is, however, that the rule of law is dead and gone six feet under so having the law at one's side doesn't help much.

  21. Anonymous says:

    "IF Florida has the same whistleblower protection law as New Jersey, it may be applicable."

    Even assuming Florida does have comprable (or even more robust) whistleblower protection, how does protect Cook?

  22. Rix says:

    > Even assuming Florida does have comparable (or even more robust)
    > whistleblower protection, how does protect Cook?

    Whistleblower protection law give legal standing to sue for damages caused by a retaliatory action of a plaintiff's superior who was damaged as a result of a complaint or lawsuit filed by the plaintiff. It'd take a good, specialized attorney to sort it out but the President (or rather, the dummy squatting in the White House) may qualify as a civil "superior" of sorts. He would also certainly qualify as a military superior but my knowledge of military court practices is below zero.

  23. Anonymous says:

    bottom line:::::: our Constitution is government FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE, not by one president. we will be heard and obama is in no position to sue anyone because it will require him proving just who he is and where did he come from and what is he hiding.

  24. Anonymous says:

    > Whistleblower protection law give
    > legal standing to sue for damages
    > caused by a retaliatory action of
    > a plaintiff's superior who was
    > damaged as a result of a
    > complaint or lawsuit filed by the
    > plaintiff.

    Not quite. It allows an employee to sue over a retaliatory action after the employee communicates about a problem. Cook never communicated to his employers (or anyone else) about a problem.

  25. Courtney says:

    http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/779860.html

    Dismissed – no longer has standing since the army revoked his orders………..

  26. Rix says:

    > Not quite. It allows an employee to sue over a retaliatory action
    > after the employee communicates about a problem. Cook never
    > communicated to his employers (or anyone else) about a problem.

    And that's precisely what happened. Maj. Cook received redress so his suit is now without merit, and since he did not go through the proper chain of command, he has no whistleblower protection. Welcome to 1984.

  27. Anonymous says:

    So now the major and his attorney have to go back to Florida and pretty much start over, refiling and re-arguing a case that has to be modified due to some more (apparently endless) political manuevering from the Dark Side. Here we go again.

    In other news, that letter sent by the Kenyan to a Hawaii hospital (in which he called the hospital "the place of my birth") last January has been verified by the hospital's administration. Now, what will the other hospital that lays claim to baby Obama do? And what about Kenya, which openly celebrates Obama's birth there?

    We are truly living in a nightmare.

    JV

  28. Anonymous says:

    How is Cook's failure to go through the chain of command Orwellian?

  29. Rix says:

    > How is Cook's failure to go through the chain of command Orwellian?

    It is not. The reality in which it is required certainly is.

  30. RoBoTech says:

    Hugh said…
    To RoBoTech:

    Check Oklahoma!

    Thank you Hugh!
    Would you believe that after posting this info on 20-30 blogs, writing and calling every major Conservative talking head (including Rush, Hannity, Steele, Tancredo, etc.) and most other , hopefully, interested parties like Dobbs, Taitz, Berg, Gov Palin, Gov Perry, Alabama Gov Candidate Jude Moore, etc., that you are the 1st person to acknowledge this action needs to be done?
    This just goes to show that while people complain about the way Government works, NOBODY will take the time to do anything about it. Which means NOTHING will be done about it. So nobody has a right to gripe if they are not willing to do what it takes to change it. I don't want ANY real recognition on this, but I do want some action by so called "Patriots".
    This is not as "sexy" as a military man contesting Obama (and I commend him for it), but every bit as important as if we want to avoid all this in the future. AND it very well may stop Obama from running in 2012.
    About the only good thing I've heard is that Missouri State Pugs are going to introduce a bill like Rep Posey's next session, and the Pug Governor Candidate says he WILL sign it if he's elected.
    So again, thank you for stepping up, Sir.

  31. Anonymous says:

    Respecting the chain of command is Orwellian? Was the concept of respecting the chain of command Orwellian when Obama wasn't president?

  32. JeanWTPUSA says:

    Here is my take on the Major cook situation. It was too long to post in the comments section.

    http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/profiles/blogs/major-cook-legal-theories

  33. Rix says:

    > Respecting the chain of command is Orwellian? Was the concept of
    > respecting the chain of command Orwellian when Obama wasn't
    > president?

    A military person of significant rank has to go to such incredible length to reasonably ensure that his commander-in-chief is giving orders legally while all news channels are playing deaf and all politicians are pretending that they don't care. Isn't it quite Orwellian to you, my friend?

  34. Anonymous says:

    > Isn't it quite Orwellian to you,
    > my friend?

    Cook didn't respect the chain of command. Nothing Orwellian about that.

  35. Rix says:

    > Cook didn't respect the chain of command. Nothing Orwellian about
    > that.

    Sure. When you are mugged and gang banged in subway passageway, do not forget to start the investigation with a detailed letter to your immediate supervisor. :)

  36. Anonymous says:

    > When you are mugged and gang
    > banged in subway passageway, do
    > not forget to start the
    > investigation with a detailed
    > letter to your immediate
    > supervisor. :)

    Why would I do that? I would go to the police.

    However, if for some reason, my continued employment was dependent upon me first reporting such incidents to my supervisor prior to going to the police, I would do so (unless there was a compelling reason not to).

  37. Anonymous says:

    When you mug and gang bang The Constitution the gloves come off. Skip the police, and let family handle it.

Speak Your Mind

*