Comments for Major Cook and his seeking a clarification of the validity of his orders to deploy...

Major Cook and his seeking a clarification of the validity of his orders to deploy...

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:20:30 -0600

Barb asked in the comments of the H&I post (the one above this one) about the new soldier refusing to deploy, this time not over an objection to the war, but rather as an assertion that President Obama is potentially unqualified to serve in the position, therefore his orders are not legitimate. My personal take is that if the war was legal under President Bush, the orders to deploy in support of it are still legal, as the Congressional authorizations are still valid, if for no other reason. This guy is pushing novel legal theories, to my untrained legal mind. I will...

Comment from BillT on 2009-07-19

Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:26:20 -0600

Releasing all the pent-up snark you forewent using in the Accounting Manuscript, I see...

Comment from Cricket on 2009-07-18

Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:15:07 -0600

And people were leaving gifts. Oh...good helk the flight into Indonesia...I really, really really need to stop.

Comment from Argent on 2009-07-18

Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:08:02 -0600

But there was a star over his house.

Comment from BillT on 2009-07-18

Sat, 18 Jul 2009 04:28:29 -0600

Not only that, but it is possible to find online scans of not one, but two different Honolulu papers which announced the birth of a son to "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama" published Aug 4, 1961.

Ah -- I knew there was a chuckle that had eluded me.

Newspapers used to use linotype, and were "put to bed" -- meaning *finalized* -- the preceding night, which meant that the morning edition of any paper was printed, at the latest, at 3am for early morning distribution. The afternoon editions were updated and printed at noon.

Any purported scan of a newspaper dated August 4, 1961 which carried Obie's birth announcement is a forgery. Obie wasn't born until 7:42pm in the evening -- according to the "official" CoLB -- which was too late for both morning *and* afternoon editions of that date.

And the evening editions -- for those papers which published them -- only changed the front page and, rarely, page 2. And it was printed at 5pm.

Go ahead -- tell me that Barry's birth made page one and they printed a special edition at 9pm because they just *knew* he was special...

Comment from Argent on 2009-07-17

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:28:15 -0600

Botox on the vocal chords would probably make things considerably better.

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-07-17

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:10:52 -0600

I'd like to see mandatory botox competency evaluations for Congressional leaders.

Comment from Argent on 2009-07-17

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:02:07 -0600

That ad drives me bonkers, we have a similar dish here 'rice a riso'. I get the stretch thing.

Comment from Boquisucio` on 2009-07-17

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:40:51 -0600

San Fran Nan also has other "loving" appelations: refered to as Rice-a-Roni and sometimes Stretch, Argent.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-07-17

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:29:57 -0600

Argent - yes, Madame Speaker.

Comment from Argent on 2009-07-17

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:21:32 -0600

I agree the official birth certificate should be produced and I'm confused about why it isn't required to be submitted to be a candidate as a matter of course. From my perspective it should have been produced irespective of the 'birthers' for government integrity reasons so that his opponents don't have the opportunity to produce evidence he's not American and throw the system into chaos.

It doesn't actually keep the numbers from growing. The mass of evidence against 9/11 'truthers' was enormous. It only made it worse. So bad in fact that a rather large percentage of the World and Americans (one figure is 36% of Americans) actually believe it today.

I get you but when I say 'because he doesn't have to' I mean it literally as in he will not be compelled to provide it. I am not at all convinced he will ever have to provide it no matter the moral or legal need/demands or whatever the 'birthers' drum up.

BTW is San Fran Nan = Pelosi?

Comment from BillT on 2009-07-17

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:32:08 -0600

That, to me, seems a dangerous path to tread.

Perzackly. That's the path that led to Pastor Niemöller's statement.

He wasn't concerned because he didn't want to know...

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-07-17

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:33:07 -0600

Heh. I'm in agreement with everybody (well, not in a fashion to qualify as a Birther) more in the fashion of Bill, really.

That said - Argent, about not feeding the trolls... I wonder if the nature of the Internet hasn't modified that dynamic somewhat? Usetabe, the loons were loners sitting in their kitchen, stealing non-local newspapers from their librarys, and collecting clippings that proved their pet theory, which was diagrammed out using 3x5 cards and yarn pinned to the living room wall, and they never were a blip on anyone's screen.

Now they have websites that are slicker'n the Clinton News Network or Obamaweek. Perhaps putting out the data, in a more fulsome way than has been done thus far, would be a good idea. No, it won't appease the tin-foilers, but it provides a counter-point that will serve to reassure people who stumble into things - as Bill said, keep it from growing.

I dunno what the answer is - ignoring things mostly worked for the Clintons, certainly.

This issue has a particularly corrosive effect, touching as it does the issue of the basic integrity of the system. I get concerned when I hear smart, educated, political and apolitical people discussing this - and a major segment of the discussion is "Leave this dog lie - it's better to not know, than to find out it's true, and throw everything into chaos."

That, to me, seems a dangerous path to tread.

Of course, the cynics just say, "Better an illegimate Obama as President than a legitimate Biden..." Of course, then the nit-pickers and tin-foilers respond, "No! It would invalidate the entire ticket!" to which the cynics respond, "Okay. Better an illegitimate Obama as President than San Fran Nan..."

Comment from BillT on 2009-07-17

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:02:57 -0600

Sure, I understand how conspiracy theories work. I also understand that just because something falls into that category doesn't necessarily mean there *isn't* some truth in the matter.

No, the correct response to crazies is to prove to them their fears are groundless. If that doesn't calm them down, it will at least keeptheir numbers from growing.

4) Because Obama doesn't have to.

However, he *did* have to -- in a Philadelphia court -- two months before the election. Lawyers for both the DNC and the Obama campaign agreed to produce the original BC, then *didn't*. And, instead of the defendants being cited for contempt, the case was dismissed.

Lack of evidence.

If you or I tried that stunt, we'd still be behind bars.

Sooo, here's yet another twist -- and you heard it here first! -- if the BC is legit, that means Obie was willing to see his defenders being incarcerated just to avoid the inconvenience of writing (or merely signing) a request that his BC be released to be introduced as proof of his eligibility.

On reflection, that would have meant a bunch of Democrats being tossed into the pokey. Which is an oddly *appealing* notion...

Comment from Argent on 2009-07-17

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:11:55 -0600

Bill you don't understand the nature of conspiracy theories. The answer is;

3) No matter how much or how good evidence you provide conspiracy theorists will leap on it as new evidence of a conspiracy. Obama producing this birth certificate publicly will only make the conspiracy stronger. The correct response to crazies is to not feed them.

this is also combined with

4) Because Obama doesn't have to.

Comment from BillT on 2009-07-17

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 03:13:56 -0600

While there might be an original physical certificate still in existence,

Well, the DNC folkses state that they went to Hawaii and *saw* the original and photographed it, so that would appear to mean it is "still in existence" -- correct?

Hawaii has a fairly restrictive privacy law in place, so the only person who could obtain the original certificate (if it still exists from 1961) would be Barry himself.

When I had to renew my passport, I got a digital scan of my original (from 1946) -- meaning, the hospital scanned the original while I watched -- in 2000. And now we come full circle -- why, since it only takes a written request from the individual, wasn't the request made? And that's part of the sticking point -- Barry had been ordered to produce it in court -- in October, 2008 -- and didn't.

...it is possible to find online scans of not one, but two different Honolulu papers which announced the birth of a son to "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama" published Aug 4, 1961.

It is also possible to find online scans of newspaper interviews with residents of Arkham recounting their encounters with Cthluhu. It's easy to alter a digital scan -- or even fabricate one -- that will pass scrutiny at low resolution. However, were those scans in agreement about *where* Obama was born? That'd be instructive, since three of his relatives each stated different locations when they were interviewed...

It's pathetic to see so many people who complained about how crazy the "leftards" got while going after George W. Bush following the exact same path.

The difference is that the "Selected, not elected" crowd was flying in the face of a flood of information and documentation. In this instance, as I stated above, there's more -- and better -- physical evidence for the existence of the Abominable Snowman than there is for the existence of a Birth Certificate stating that Obama was born in Hawaii.

The question that's bugging everyone is -- why, if all it takes to eliminate the controversy is Obama producing his BC, hasn't he done so?

Right now, the only two answers are

1. It doesn't exist

or

2. The DNC has decided it makes a convenient stalking horse to draw focus from potentially nastier questions.

Comment from Casey on 2009-07-17

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:14:00 -0600

Some of the objectors here need to do a bit of basic research. Hawaii went all-electronic a while ago, so all you can get are electronic copies. While there might be an original physical certificate still in existence, Hawaii has a fairly restrictive privacy law in place, so the only person who could obtain the original certificate (if it still exists from 1961) would be Barry himself.

That said, the COLB provided has been physically examined and photographed by FactCheck.org. They have posted the photos online. Hawaii’s Department of Health Director Chiyome Fukino has testified that she has "personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures," as has registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka.

Not only that, but it is possible to find online scans of not one, but two different Honolulu papers
which announced the birth of a son to "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama" published Aug 4, 1961. So the birthers are apparently claiming there's some sort of nearly-fifty-year-old conspiracy to propel Barry to the Oval Office.

This whole mess is at least as silly as the Florida 2000 "selected, not elected" "controversy," and it promises to get worse. It's pathetic to see so many people who complained about how crazy the "leftards" got while going after George W. Bush following the exact same path.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-07-16

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:46:08 -0600

Heh. Oddly enough, I've *never* had to produce a notarized translation of my birth certificate.

Ever.

Even for my security clearance updates - but that's probably because they are covered by the Naturalization Certificate, which I *do* have to produce.

Comment from olga on 2009-07-16

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:41:44 -0600

John,
Any document not in English must be translated into English, a certified translation - translator's statement must be notarized :o)
In most states you need to prove that you are a citizen or here legally - US Birth Certificate (certified), an unexpired US passport, a green card or a valid visa.
In order to prove you are who you are, a birth certificate gives the most points, even if it is in a foreign language, just have a certified translation attached...

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-07-16

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 06:28:06 -0600

Ryko - now I'm curious - it has to be in english? So, what do I do, with my "Geburtsurkunde," or birth certificate... in German?

I can't drive or get an ID in NJ?

I'm sure I can - I'm just making the point that I suspect other documents are also acceptable.

Tim - depends on the purpose you need the certificate for, i.e., for a drivers license, in the states where I've gotten the licenses, it's used to establish age, not citizenship. For a passport, that would be a different story.

Comment from Foxfier on 2009-07-16

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:06:05 -0600

Ryko-
the certificate folks are asking for is a certified copy of the actual birth certificate, not a computer generated copy that, by law, is able to be edited for a wide range of reasons.

Comment from Ryko on 2009-07-15

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:41:31 -0600

AW1 Tim,

Yes a certified copy of your Birth Certificate, not a certified copy of the "long form" of your birth certificate.

I live in New Jersey. To get a New Jersey drivers license or state ID you must produce proof that you are who you say you are. The first item of proof is a birth certificate.

According to the state:

Civil birth certificate* or certified copy from one of the 50 states, District of Columbia or a US territory. Photocopies or certificates from hospitals or religious entities are not accepted.

* All documents must be ORIGINAL or CERTIFIED COPIES, in English, and have the required state and/or municipal seals.

Therefore in New Jersey, the "long form birth certificate" that the birthers are screaming for, would NOT be accepted as proof because it is not issued by the State or Municipality and it does not have the required seal.

Comment from Ryko on 2009-07-15

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:28:26 -0600

Major Cook is an Army Reservist, not on active duty.

Major Cook Volunteered to deploy.

At any time, prior to the date they is to report, a volunteer can rescind the offer. All they need do is contact the army and tell them they have changed their mind. They heed not provide a reason, they need not ask for permission to rescind.

That is exactly what appers to have happened. Major Cook, served papers on the Army saying he was no longer volunteering. Doing it in court was a little over the top, but if he wanted to make a side show out of it that is his right.

Comment from Ryko on 2009-07-15

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:22:42 -0600

Comment from AW1 Tim on 2009-07-15

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:16:28 -0600

And yet,

   I need to renew my drivers license. Guess what.....

   I am REQUIRED to providre a certified copy of my BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

   The government requires ME to prove that I am a CITIZEN.

    However, POTUS seems to be exempt from that requirement, even though the constitution seems to have something to say about that.

   Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat!

Comment from True Blue on 2009-07-15

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:49:56 -0600

Move along, nothing to see here. Just another right-wing-nut-job of a coward who supports the troops with a yellow magnetic ribbon on his vehicle and likes to dress up in a uniform so he can pretend to be a soldier. Just not serve.

Comment from olga on 2009-07-15

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:28:20 -0600

Grumpy,
for the SCOTUS case, you just need to be an active duty in order to have legal standing to compel BO to produce the actual certificate. The previous case filed by the same attorney, who is now being called the loony and such, had several retired general officers but was dismissed or 'certiorari was denied' because as a retired personnel they did not have standing to sue or could not show an imminent personal harm. Being an active duty who is deployed or being deployed under the orders to the CIC (no matter how you slice it, who signs it, the order does come from the CIC) puts one in a position to be harmed if the orders are given by a person who is not eligible to be the CIC, thus he has standing.
There is another guy who was already in Iraq when he declared his objection and joined as a plaintiff. With Cook deploying to Afghanistan, they would have had 2 plaintiffs with standing covering both conflicts.
So, once he got his orders, he gained that elusive legal standing for the SCOTUS case.
Once the case is filed in the Fed Ct, it would have been kicked up to the SCOTUS, very quick, as I am sure the fed bench has no desire to deal with this issue.
So, here is the legal strategy behind this event.

Comment from Grumpy on 2009-07-15

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:27:53 -0600

As I look at this, first, I don't agree with Obama on many things. Maybe, this is the reason, they just call me "Grumpy". Before this man could take The Office of the President of the US, don't you think this man was vetted by law enforcement? Law enforcement is not political, but must deal with facts based on evidence.

*THE FIRST THING TO BE SAID TO THIS MAJOR, "GET LEGAL COUNSEL!"*

Now, comes the complex mix of Conscientious Objector status, Supreme Court of the US, "Court Standing" and the relationship of the Uniformed Military with politics, argghh! Let's split this mess apart. Olga, you raise a critically important issue and inferred question on SCOTUS and court standing. Is it possible for this Major to gain SCOTUS, court standing? How? The only way for him to gain the *possibility* is to go through the Military Court System in uniform, those last two words are extremely important. Now, as you go through the different layers, you must have permission to appeal the decision, from each layer. The permission equals standing.

Part of the problem, in this issue is the political nature of it. Then you have DOD's view on the mixture of politics and the wearing of the Uniform of the US Military. SECDEF has already made himself quite clear, *NO.*

The CO status is for a very limited group of absolutely non-political reasons, with a proven long established history.

As y'all can tell, I'm no lawyer, I walk upright. But as I assess this man's situation, there are two words that come to mind, "snowball" and "hell".

Comment from olga on 2009-07-15

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:19:55 -0600

It just came in today that his civilian employer, a private sector defense contractor, terminated his employment because the Defense Security Services (??) - Fed Gov't - advised that they no longer want him to be employed. He lost his private sector job because the Feds did not like what he did in his reserve status. Gives me another unpleasant flashback but most people celebrate this development...

Comment from Blake Kirk on 2009-07-15

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:48:58 -0600

Curiouser and curiouser.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is reporting that MAJ Cook is an IMA (Individual Mobilization Augmentee, a reservist who has a standing moblization assignment to an active-component organization, for those who do not speak fluent Army Creole,) who evidently sent a letter to Human Resources Command on May 8 volunteering to serve a one-year tour in Afghanistan. Then he files the lawsuit and files a request for CO status.

I suspect that revoking his orders was done to make the lawsuit moot while the Army figures out what they are going to do to with him. I hope that he didn't plan on having any retirement benefits.

Comment from BillT on 2009-07-15

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:22:43 -0600

...what would happen if indeed it was proven that our President is not legally eligible to hold the office...

Look for the entire leadership of the DNC to decamp for a country with which we have no extradition treaty -- they affirmed his eligibility.

And if they did so without examining the evidence of his eligibility, which they are *required* to do...'nuff sed.

Of course, they could also make the case that, like paying taxes, the requirement only holds for them if they get caught *not* doing it.

Comment from nceeno on 2009-07-15

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:41:27 -0600

It pisses me off that it's ok to give BO a pass since we should have checked his birth certificate earlier. Screw that. I want to know whether he is legitimate or not. I don't think he was born in Hawaii at all or the hospital where the act occurred would have celebrated BO Day and would have let all the world's news agencies know that they were the hosiptal that brought the Savior into the world.
No, he needs to be checked. Yesterday.

Comment from Foxfier on 2009-07-15

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:12:59 -0600

On a side note, Hawaii law allows for certificates of live birth for folks born outside of Hawaii, so long as at least one parent was a resident. This also applies for adopted children.

Me, I figure he was born in Hawaii, but there's something on the actual certificate that would make trouble, somehow. Father not listed, citizenship claimed as father's, mother's religion not "n/a"....something. Shoot, at one point I joked that he'd been born Betty Obama, since that's another reason someones COLB would differ from the BC. The only other option (I can think of) is that there's nothing damaging or even interesting, and for some reason Team Obama is just refusing to solve an utterly simple problem for no good reason.

Comment from JamesLee on 2009-07-15

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:11:39 -0600

Again, as I said above, only following this out of curiosity. However, the revoking the orders does add a new wrinkle to the whole thing. Perhaps they changed the orders so he would be present for a courts martial. But if he's not ordered to deploy, then there is nothing to charge him with. For that matter, I know from past experience that orders get changed or revoked all the time for many different reasons, perhaps the unit he was going to already had someone of his specialty doing his job.

Much more of this though, and I might start think there's something smoldering there somewhere! Would be really interesting for a newsjunkie like me to follow what would happen if indeed it was proven that our President is not legally eligible to hold the office. Would there be hearings? Impeachment (charges could be fraud and misrepresentation, perhaps forgery)? Martial Law? Does Plugs just move up one notch, or do we have a special election? The possibilities are endless.

Naww, on second thought, I won't hold my breath.

Comment from olga on 2009-07-15

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:13:27 -0600

The SCOTUS refused the cert for the case because none of the plaintiffs had 'standing to sue' and clearly identified who would be a valid plaintiff with standing to sue (no retired military qualifies, must be an active duty - the SCOTUS refused to hear the case which had at least several retired general officers).
First, there was an LT who was already deployed to Iraq when he filed his objections and became a plaintiff. Now, they would have covered it from another side - an active duty who is deploying.
If I was a conspiracy nut, I would say the fact that the Army revoked his orders clearly indicates the WH does not want the case to ever get to the SCOTUS - they would have compelled the guy to produce the actual certificate or be in contempt of court...
Again, the guys took it for the team and so many people are quick to call them names and worse...

Comment from BillT on 2009-07-15

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 05:47:08 -0600

Actually, there *is* something that could have been done about it. A Federal judge, during the course of a previously-filed lawsuit, could have issued a warrant stating that the DNC and the Obama campaign must produce the BC by a certain date or be held in contempt of court.

Except a Federal judge did that, the DNC and the Obie campaign failed to produce the document in court within the time specified, and -- the case was then summarily dismissed.

Comment from wolfwalker on 2009-07-15

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 05:24:58 -0600

This morning the Worldnutdaily is saying that Major Cook's deployment order was revoked without explanation.

I think the most interesting thing to come out of the "nirther" tempest-in-a-teacup was that there is no agency, federal or state, that is tasked with checking the bona fides of candidates for president. Thus, even if it was true that Wormtongue isn't a natural-born citizen, there was and is nothing that can be done about it.

Comment from JimC on 2009-07-14

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:33:16 -0600

Teh Certificate is from the wrong year so whoever created it after the fact blew it.

No court will touch this. It will be dismissed for some reason. MAJ Cook is done.

Comment from Neffi on 2009-07-14

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:43:18 -0600

Ah, I see the CofLB was discussed in the post above... 'blush'... but the link doesn't discuss that one l'il thing I find to be of interest...

Comment from Neffi on 2009-07-14

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:23:10 -0600

Well, and there is a BO 'Certificate of Live Birth' out there, issued by a Honolulu hospital in '61 and posted last year by his support team.
Seems genuine, though there *is* one thing - on the face of it- that seems a bit.... um, inconsistent, if you will...
Anyone?

Comment from JamesLee on 2009-07-14

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:11:11 -0600

Personally, I am NOT a "birther," or I guess they are calling them "nirthers" now (Native Birth?). Anyway, I think the time for that fight was about 2 years ago or so. It's over and done.

The curious matter regarding the whole notion in general, though, does slightly intrigue me. Why in the world does Obama and his people not put this thing to rest once and for all. Either there IS a genuine certificate or there is not. If there is, it is a simple matter to release it, redact certain personal info while leaving enough proof, and this whole matter is put to bed. End of story.

The only theory I can come up with is that they are working from the notion that responding to any given attack thus gives the attacker, and the attack itself, credibility. Which in this instance is also immediately debunked with no harm done. In my own opinion, right or not, the longer this goes on without definitive proof one way or the other (and I'm assuming the proof IS available and Mr. Obama IS therefore eligible to hold the office he was voted into), the longer the 'questions' fester and grow, and ultimately, the more damage it does.

Neffi is probably right, that Major Cook is in a world o' sheet over this. I hope the best for him, and if it just gets some questions answered, well, that wouldn't be a bad thing either.

Comment from Neffi on 2009-07-14

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:07:36 -0600

Cook is fooked. He has nothing whatsoever beyond his personal belief that BO is not a citizen- and therefore not eligible to be Prez- to defend his refusal to deploy, and I don't know that 'doubting the validity of the CinC's right to be such' counts as conscientous objecting...
I hope he's sincere, and ready to accept what happens next...