Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Soldier balks at deploying; says Obama isn’t president
Says he shouldn’t have to go to Afghanistan because Obama is not a U.S. citizen

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/776335.html

U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, set to deploy to Afghanistan, says he shouldn’t have to go.

His reason?

Barack Obama was never eligible to be president because he wasn’t born in the United States.

Actually, Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, two years after it became a state.

Cook’s lawyer, Orly Taitz, who has also challenged the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency in other courts, filed a request last week in federal court seeking a temporary restraining order and status as a conscientious objector for his client.

In the 20-page document — filed July 8 with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia — the California-based Taitz asks the court to consider granting his client’s request based upon Cook’s belief that Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Cook further states he “would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the United States under this President’s command. ... simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by the faithful execution of these duties.â€

Great news! Let's keep a close eye on this!

RELATED

Reservist balks at deployment, challenging Obama's citizenship

You can post a comment on the USA TODAY Online site at this link:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/20 ... ship-.html
---------------------------------------------------

http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-923850.html#923850

Calls needed to Senate in opposition to Sotomayor nomination!!! Please join in!

http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-923855.html#923855

Originally Posted by 93camaro

Soldier balks at deploying; says Obama isn’t president
Says he shouldn’t have to go to Afghanistan because Obama is not a U.S. citizen

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/776335.html

U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, set to deploy to Afghanistan, says he shouldn’t have to go.

His reason?

Barack Obama was never eligible to be president because he wasn’t born in the United States.

Actually, Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, two years after it became a state.

You have some proof that Obama was born in Hawaii? We've all been looking for it without success.

BORN IN THE USA?
U.S. officer demands answer: Is Army 'corps of chattel slaves?'
Court challenge demands conscientious objector status unless evidence provided
Posted: July 11, 2009
12:05 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida with orders to report for deployment to Afghanistan within days has filed a court demand to be classified as a "conscientious objector" because without proof of the commander-in-chief's eligibility for office, the entire army "becomes merely a corps of chattel slaves under the illegitimate control of a private citizen."

A hearing on the questions raised by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, an engineer who told WND he wants to serve his country in Afghanistan, already has been scheduled for July 16 at 9:30 a.m., according to California attorney Orly Taitz, who is handling the claim.

Cook told WND he's ready, willing and able to carry out the military needs of the United States, but he raised the challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to be president because if he would be captured by enemy forces while serving overseas under the orders of an illegitimate president, he could be considered a "war criminal."

"As an officer in the armed forces of the United States, it is [my] duty to gain clarification on any order we may believe illegal. With that said, if President Obama is found not to be a 'natural-born citizen,' he is not eligible to be commander-in-chief," he told WND only hours after the case was filed.

"[Then] any order coming out of the presidency or his chain of command is illegal. Should I deploy, I would essentially be following an illegal [order]. If I happened to be captured by the enemy in a foreign land, I would not be privy to the Geneva Convention protections," he said.

The order for the hearing in the federal court for the Middle District of Georgia from U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land said the hearing on the request for a temporary restraining order will be held Thursday.

Cook said without a legitimate president as commander-in-chief, members of the U.S. military in overseas actions could be determined to be "war criminals and subject to prosecution."

He said the vast array of information about Obama that is not available to the public confirms to him that "something is amiss."

"That and the fact the individual who is occupying the White House has not been entirely truthful with anybody," he said. "Every time anyone has made an inquiry, it has been either cast aside, it has been maligned, it has been laughed at or just dismissed summarily without further investigation.

"You know what. It would be so simple to solve. Just produce the long-form document, certificate of live birth," he said.

He said he is scheduled to report for duty one day before his hearing, on July 15, and while other details are not public, he knows he is scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan as part of President Obama's plan to increase pressure of insurgent forces there.

He told WND he is prepared for a backlash against him as a military officer, since members of the military swear to uphold and follow their orders. However, he noted that following an illegal order would be just as bad as failing to follow a legal order.

"What I want to do is deploy to Afghanistan, do my job as an Army officer, engineer. I do not want to subject myself to the possibility that I might be violating the [Uniform Code of Military Justice]," he said.

Named as defendants in the case are Col. Wanda Good, Col. Thomas Macdonald, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Obama, described as "de facto president of the United States."

According to the court filing, Cook affirmed when he joined the military, he took the following oath: "I, Stefan Frederick Cook, 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."

According to the claim, "Plaintiff submits that it is implicit though not expressly stated that an officer is and should be subject to court-martial, because he will be derelict in the performance of his duties, if he does not inquire as to the lawfulness, the legality, the legitimacy of the orders which he has received, whether those orders are specific or general."

The military courts offer no option for raising the question, so he turned to civilian courts to consider "a question of paramount constitutional and legal importance: the validity of the chain of command under a president whose election, eligibility, and constitutional status appear open to serious question."

"Others may cynically ridicule this plaintiff when, as an officer responsible not only to obey those above him but to protect those under his command, he comes to this court asking for the right to establish the legality of orders received not only for his own protection, but for the protection of all enlisted men and women who depend on HIS judgment that the orders he follows are legal. Above all, when Plaintiff Major Stefan Frederick Cook submits and contends that he files and will prosecute this lawsuit and seeks an injunction or temporary restraining order against the enforcement of potentially illegal orders for the benefit of all servicemen and women and for the benefit of all officers in all branches of the U.S. military, he knows that those in power illegitimately may seek to injure his career. He knows that he risks all and he does so in the conscientious belief that he does so for not merely his own, but the general good," according to the court filing.

"Plaintiff files this suit to clarify how he can both obey all lawful orders and avoid dereliction of his duties so as to escape court-martial under the UCMJ if he does NOT question the legality of the orders he has received. Plaintiff seeks to avoid not only court-martial in this country, but also treatment as a war-criminal or terrorist, not eligible even for protection under the Geneva Convention, if he were found to be a merely mercenary soldier in a private army of slaves, 'owned' or controlled by an unconstitutional and therefore illegal commander, if he does not ask the question: 'is this order legal?'" the case pleading states.

"Is an officer entitled to refuse orders on grounds of conscientious objection to the legitimate constitutional authority of the current de facto Commander-in-Chief?" is the question that must be answered, the case contends.

"In the alternative, is an officer entitled to a judicial stay of the enforcement of facially valid military orders where that officer can show evidence that the chain-of-command from the commander-in-chief is tainted by illegal activity?

"The issue or question raised by this suit is uniquely federal and properly (and in fact necessarily) subject to the exercise of federal power: the question whether the constitutional legitimacy of the chain of command under a constitutionally legitimate commander-in-chief pursuant to Article II, §§1-2 of the Constitution is essential to the maintenance of balance of powers and separation of powers under the Constitution, and cannot be lightly dismissed in light of the plaintiff's evidence that the de facto president of the United States is not only constitutionally unqualified, but procured his election by fraudulent and illegitimate means which may constitute a pattern of racketeering utilizing the apparatus of corrupt organizations in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq," it alleges.

Among the officer's arguments:

* "The evidence contained in Exhibit B shows that Barack Hussein Obama might have used as many as 149 addresses and 39 social security numbers prior to assuming the office of president."

* "Exhibit C, the expert affidavit of renowned forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines, states that the certification of live birth posted by Mr. Obama as verification of his legitimacy cannot be verified as genuine and should be presumed fraudulent. "

* "Hawaiian statute 338 allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain Hawaiian birth certificates, that those birth certificates can be obtained based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence from the hospital; that 'late birth certificates' (i.e. non-contemporaneously, post-facto, in two words 'potentially fabricated') can lawfully, under this statute, be obtained at any time later in life.

* "Barack Hussein Obama's original birth certificate was never provided by the state of Hawaii, but only a statement that there is an original 'long birth certificate' document on file. The statement repeatedly provided by Hawaiian officials is quite simply incomplete, evasive, and without explanation of critical details: namely, whether it is a foreign birth certification or one obtained based on a statement of one relative only, or a late certification or amended one, obtained upon adoption by his stepfather."

"In other words, plaintiff asks this court to rule, declare, and adjudge, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a), that an officer of the Army of the United States (all officers!) must have the right to question apparently illegitimate authority in the courts or else in the course of his employment as an officer directly within the army chain of command or in both capacities and by both manners.

"Barack Hussein Obama, in order to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as president, basically needs only produce a single unique historical document for the Plaintiff’s inspection and authentication: namely, the 'long-form' birth certificate which will confirm whether Barack Hussein Obama was in fact born to parents who were both citizens of the United States in Honolulu, Hawaii, in or about 1961," explains the complaint.

Taitz has filed multiple legal actions around the country alleging Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements to occupy the Oval Office.
...
Now a pleading has been submitted by Thomas P. O'Brein, Leon Weidman, Roger West and David DeJute, U.S. attorneys or assistants, claiming the federal government has an interest in the claim made against Obama's actions before he took office.

The lawyers claim it is "indisputable" that the government has an interest in actions Obama took prior to his inauguration, and, therefore, the government must be served with proper notice of the action. The attorneys claim that wasn't done.

In still another case, Taitz had submitted a request to the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. military to consider military justice code complaints filed by individual members of the military challenging Obama's eligibility.

In response, J.W. Crawford III, legal counsel for the chiefs, confirmed that he had forwarded her concerns and information to the "office of General Counsel, Litigation Counsel" for further review.

Multiple questions have been raised about what that would mean to the 2008 election, to the orders and laws Obama has signed and other issues, including whether he then is a valid commander-in-chief of the military.

RELATED

Readers respond to soldier's bid to block Afghan deployment

You can post a comment on the USA TODAY Online site at this link:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/20 ... lumbus-ga-
newspaper-has-sparked-some-sharp-responses-from-readers-click-here-for-the-posting.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-923920.html#923920

Charles Lincoln writes, on his "Tierra Limpia" blog:

A modern American Military Hero:
Major Stefan Frederick Cook
July 14, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Given what he is risking to do what he sees as his Patriotic Duty, Major Stefan Cook is as courageous a hero than I for one have EVER met. He is not a sunshine soldier or summertime Patriot, as Thomas Paine once wrote (1776) in Common Sense. These ARE the times that try men's souls.

People who do not understand what it means for an officer to weigh his career against the possibilities of committing men under him to illegal wars and combat under an illegitimate leader have never learned and will never understand the lessons of history from Nuremberg or of [Adolf] Eichmann in Jerusalem. [snip]

It is my hope and opinion that Major Stefan Cook, if he is not crushed by social and political pressure, will make a more lasting impression on U.S. military history and foreign policy than anyone else over the past 30-50 years. An ethical army can only exist if we have conscious officers in command of our armed forces. The existence of a standing army under the virtually exclusive and discretionary control of the increasingly powerful executive branch in the United States constitutes a threat (recognized by the Founding Fathers) to the balance of powers and our Federal Republican form of government.

To counterbalance the nearly absolute power of the president the people must demand and support an officer corps with legal awareness and consciousness as well as strategic, tactical, and technical competence. The modern armed forces can move so quickly in this day and age that the ability to make “in the field” and “on base” legal judgments on the part of officers has become absolutely essential in this day-and-time. I for one am proud to be a part of the legal team, with Dr. Orly Taitz, which tries to realize Major Stefan Frederick Cook’s hopes and dreams for a better world and a better America. The rule of Constitutional Law is paramount in this country, and confidence in the Constitutional qualifications and plain honest of our leadership is indispensable. I for one have little or no such confidence in the current administration, I will have no truck or dealings with anyone who impugns this military man’s great, unparalleled courage and dedication to principal. It is an old joke that “army intelligence is an oxymoron.” Intelligence is sometimes characterized by an individual’s courage to change the things he can, the serenity to accept the things he cannot, and the wisdom to know the difference. Major Stefan Frederick Cook is taking a valiant chance here that he can change the transparency of his government’s leadership and their responsiveness to public concerns. Major Cook’s choice, his decision to risk all for conscience, his bravery, and acumen shown in his statement quoted on this blog below proves just high his “army intelligence” really is.

[ED.: comments follow, some of which are profane and derisive of birthers' sanity. Other critics are derisive of Maj. Cook's valor, demonstrated in repeated combat tours.]

In case anyone missed this from ModernGhana.com on July 9. . .

"US President Barack Obama is expected to announce a major foreign policy for Africa during his historic two-day visit to Ghana, beginning Friday, July 10, 2009. . .

"For Ghana, Obama's visit will be a celebration of another milestone in African history as it hosts the first-ever African-American President on
this presidential visit to the continent of his birth."

Did he think he could avoid that obvious comment by visiting Ghana instead of Kenya?

Try neighboring Burkina Faso next time. Maybe they won't know what most other Africans know...
what everyone in Kenya knows.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

In case anyone missed this from ModernGhana.com on July 9. . .

US President Barack Obama is expected to announce a major foreign policy for Africa
during his historic two-day visit to Ghana, beginning Friday, July 10, 2009. . .

For Ghana, Obama's visit will be a celebration of another milestone
in African history as it hosts the first-ever African-American President on
this presidential visit to the continent of his birth.

Did he think he could avoid that obvious comment by visiting Ghana instead of Kenya?

Try neighboring Burkina Faso next time. Maybe they won't know what most other Africans know...
what everyone in Kenya knows.

Will the American public really get the facts or just another forgery then told to shut up?!!! I mean you have to consider that this is all an elaborate show to just put it all to rest so that the powers that be can continue their NWO agenda?!!