July 15, 2009

Deployment Orders for Soldier Who Challenged Obama's Citizenship Revoked?

I happen to think that Birthers are nuts, which makes this all the more befuddling, if true:

A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida scheduled to report for deployment to Afghanistan within days has had his military orders revoked after arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office.

His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.

"We won! We won before we even arrived," she said with excitement. "It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!"

I have no ready explanation for why the military would rescind his deployment orders, unless they plan to keep him stateside to begin a disciplinary investigation against him. Frankly, for the sake of our nation, I hope this is the case.

Because if the Pentagon allows soldiers to simply declare Obama an an illegitimate Command in Chief—as the article would have you believe—it would seem to set a precedent that would lead to chaos in the military, allowing service members to question all orders for the executive branch. It would be anarchy.

WorldNet Daily simply must have this wrong. The larger ramifications of the case being dismissed for the reasons alleged by the attorney are too terrible to consider.

Update: Was the entire case a scam?

Greyhawk makes a compelling case that the birther's "victory" here may be fraud, and more importantly, one that forces another soldier who was not scheduled for deployment to leave his loved ones on very short notice.

If that is the case, Major Cook is a blue falcon of the first order.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at July 15, 2009 09:45 AM

We've agreed to disagree on whether he is or is not a NBC. I'd like to suggest, though, that it's the ramifications of having a president who cannot, or WILL not prove his eligibility that are too terrible to contemplate, and this point is not disputable. He refuses to offer the proof that would end this in one minute.

Posted by: Bill Smith at July 15, 2009 10:22 AM


What disciplinary investigation is there to bring? He did not Miss Movement - the movement orders were revoked.

It's not illegal to question an order, it is illegal to not follow an order. In this case the legitimate authority changed its mind.


Posted by: Miike at July 15, 2009 10:32 AM

I tend to agree with you about the sanity
of the birthers but what is scary is that
Obama will not release birth certificate
or just about anything else about him.
Little stuff like medical records, school
transcripts, etc. Most of what we know
about Obama is what _he_ has told us about

Privacy I can understand but when you are
president you have none.

Posted by: tps at July 15, 2009 10:34 AM

Why do you figure they did that? My guess is Obama doesn't want more idiots representing our soldiers or more racists out there with guns and itchy trigger fingers around brown people.

Posted by: george at July 15, 2009 10:37 AM

I'm with Bill Smith; we'll have to agree to disagree about the eligibility issue. Look, it doesn't matter who the man is--Obama, Clinton, Mork from Ork, or John Quincy Adams. What does matter is respect for the Constitution. A sense of duty to the American people and to the founding fathers--unselfishly upholding the Rule of Law. He has yet to offer definitive proof that he is Constitutionally eligible for the Presidency which to me indicates that he doesn't have any respect for the document or the American people. It's so simple to prove and would make a lot of people, like myself, eat their words. Why wouldn't he want to do that? Most of the possible answers terrify me.

Frankly, judging by the folks he's appointing (Tzars, I'm looking at you) it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he was ineligible.

Not that I think Congress would do anything about it at this point if that were the case.

I feel as though I'm mourning the loss of my Country. It's not a conservative thing or a liberal thing. We've been out of touch with what the Founding Fathers envisioned for a good long while.

I do agree that there's probably some important information left out of this article.

Posted by: Jess at July 15, 2009 10:38 AM

So, are the "birthers" wrong? Possibly. However, there is a great deal about Obama's past that is inexplicably missing or inaccessible. I've no doubt that should I run for high office, even my toenail clippings from third grade would be made public. How is it then that a simple, authentic document or documents proving Obama's birthplace, and his eligibility to be president, cannot be produced? One would think that something so simple, something so common for all Americans could be quickly and easily made public. One might also think that Obama would want to put this sort of thing behind him once and for all.

On the other hand, it certainly isn't hard to imagine that Obama and his minions would lie about something like this, is it? In any case, it would be nice to know, with certainty, wouldn't it?

Posted by: MikeMcDaniel at July 15, 2009 10:57 AM

This is insanity. President Obama campaigned for two years and won the White House fair and square. The American people have spoken. I don't care if he was born on Mars, or from the jackal in THE OMEN. Obama is 100% POTUS. But as a six-year veteran, I do care what effect this case will have on morale and welfare in the US Armed Forces. And I say all that as a lifelong conservative Republican who has never voted Democrat, OK? Obama is President. Even Rush Limbaugh and David Horowitz concede that basic point. GET OVER IT!

Posted by: TheMadKing at July 15, 2009 11:18 AM

TheMadKing, I must disagree. It continues to matter because the Constitution clearly states that the President must be a NBC. If it is proven that he is not, I think there is a valid question as to whether he is legally the President even having won the election. At the very least it would melt down into a Consitutional crisis which could cause all kinds of unrest.

I personally hope for the stability of our country that he is a NBC, but I'm not real sure why he wouldn't want to put the issue to rest.

Posted by: PoliticalGhost at July 15, 2009 11:35 AM

But it is not just the question of birth. I have yet to hear (or read) a reasonable explanation of how he was able to travel to Indonesia ans Pakistan. He could not have done it with a US passport at the time.

Either a UK passport, or Indonesia passport...

Can some one enlighten me on how that works?

Posted by: Choops at July 15, 2009 11:44 AM

"I don't care if he was born on Mars, or from the jackal in THE OMEN. Obama is 100% POTUS." - TheMadKing

You're welcome to your opinion, MadKing, but you'd be at odds with the Constitution on thar account since there are requirements for the office of POTUS.

Come to think of it, the Omen-Jackal as POTUS would be a step up from what we have now....

Posted by: Steve Thorson at July 15, 2009 11:51 AM


As I understand it--and I don't pretend to be a lawyer--if Obama is not a NBC, then he simply and utterly fails to qualify for office under the Constitution and the 22nd amendment. It does not mater if he was elected if he is not a NBC, becuase he did not qualify. His election would be simply be invalidated, and no impeachment is needed. Pack up, and go home, thee is nothing to appeal, unless he wants to see if he can get his Senate seat back from Roland Burris.

Biden would theoretically take over as acting President if Obama was booted because he is not NBC. Beyond that? Get's far too murky for me to want to delve into it.

Of course, I think he's an NBC and that the lawyer in this case isn't to be trusted, but exploring the hypothetical is an interesting exercise.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 15, 2009 11:58 AM

MadKing ... Yes Obama campaigned for the office of President for two years. But he stonewalled all the way on his validating records as an American citizen -- his proof that he is a natural born citizen of the United States, his scholastic records, both from secondary school and colleges, whether he has a legitimate passport. While he studied at Occidental College, he accepted a scholarship under the name Barry Soetoro which was designated for foreign students, which could be described in the very least as fraud. So he seems curiously uncertain whether he is a foreign student or a natural born citizen of the United States, What's more, since he has been inaugurated and is serving as our President, he still stubbornly refuses to clear up these puzzling holes in his resume.

As PoliticalGhost says, if he can't "find" these documents and prove his legitimacy for the office he holds, then we have a constitutional crisis on our hands.

Marianne Matthews

Posted by: Marianne Matthews at July 15, 2009 12:01 PM

I tend to agree with most here. Produce the documentation and the story ends.

As far as the comment by tps: "Little stuff like medical records, school transcripts, etc. Most of what we know about Obama is what _he_ has told us about himself."

Below is the list from the WND article, and it seems to be a bit more than just little stuff, I would call this a complete wash cycle:

"WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records."

Posted by: scituate_tgr at July 15, 2009 12:02 PM

Good projection George! If you want to see a racist take a look in the mirror.

Posted by: bandit at July 15, 2009 12:03 PM

I think the birthers are the same as the truthers, but what scares me more is, they have a point. Obama has put a lot of energy and money into blocking information that really doesn't need to be blocked. His first executive order (I could be mistaken about when it was signed) was to block access to presidential records? Why is his thesis and Law Journal articles blocked from access.

To paraphrase the Bard, Methinks he doth protest too much.

If he had nothing to hide, then just show it. He is acting guilty by not doing so. I hope he is a NBC because if it comes out he isn't, it will probably destroy this country faster than Obama's policies are doing.

Posted by: John at July 15, 2009 12:17 PM

"WorldNet Daily simply must have this wrong. The larger ramifications of the case being dismissed for the reasons alleged by the attorney are too terrible to consider."

Oh yeah, I forgot to ask. On that - you doubt his orders were suddenly, oddly and inexplicably revoked in a bizarre 180 turn? The revoked order, in fact, is posted at the atty's site. Someone got very nervous.

It is easy to dismiss such things, but it's not always the wisest route in the end. I remember many fine and intelligent people who thought there was no way Richard Nixon could be involved in a bungled burglary at some hotel.

Posted by: Steve Thorson at July 15, 2009 12:25 PM

Can't keep him here for disipline until he violates part of the UCMJ. From what I understand he did not refuse the order, just filed a lawsuit. Nothing illegal about that. Very interesting. Maybe they don't want to fight it. But they won the Michael New case. So, even more interesting.

Posted by: Federale at July 15, 2009 12:29 PM

The courts(including SCOTUS) will never touch this issue for two reasons.

First and foremost, as PG states, an adverse ruling against BHO would invoke a Constitutional crisis by nullifying a presidential election - not to mention nullifying the election of the first black POTUS. SCOTUS, while not s'posed to be political, has become so. They would not take this action without political cover.

Second, certifying a presidential election is the purview of Congress. On 1/8/09 Congress in joint session certified the 2008 electoral college results, making BHO POTUS(which, BTW is why Maj. Cook will not get anywhere with this objection; BHO is POTUS because the Congress said so). It's a separation of powers issue belonging to Congress. IMO(totally unqualified), once the EC results were certified, his qualifications(or lack) effectively became moot. Judiciary will have a perfect alibi for keeping hands off. If congress decides that BHO perjured himself by providing false credentials, then they may impeach, convict and remove him from office. Voila - constitutional crisis averted; other than Joe Biden is now POTUS. Biden gets to appoint his own VP(Nancy P doesn't automatically ascend).

Regardless the evidence, Congress wouldn't go the impeachment route until public opinion turns overwhelmingly against BHO, this giving themselves political cover. And no, I'm not holding my breath for any of this to happen...

Posted by: diogenes online at July 15, 2009 12:30 PM

You cannot fool all of the people all of the time, but you can certainly fool 52% of them at least once.

Posted by: Lil at July 15, 2009 12:45 PM

I would say chances are Barry-boy are about 80% - but that's not 100%.

Can you remember another American president (or serious candidate), who millions of Americans questioned their NBC eligability?

Or Hussein may very well hold dual citizenship - US and Indonesia. Not sure if that invalidates his eligiability (probably does) and you must swear off all allegiances to other nations, kingdoms, etc.

Posted by: Wyan at July 15, 2009 12:57 PM

really....why is it so unfathenable to think he was not born in the USA? Why is it?

....have anyone NOT seen or heard all of the lies that Obama and His adminstration of commissars perpetuates on a daily basis?

....has anyone NOT seen how one campaign promise after the other has been broken by Obama and shows Obama to be a L-I-A-R.

...has anyone NOT heard sotomayor this week?????? yesterday??? ayres & wright in the past????

Obama is a product of liberals, radicals and liars. In fact, the basis for all three are to never accept criticism about themselves that is true and negative.

...why is it that the conservative folks who feel he is a phony are "right wing nut jobs" by certain "right wing" bloggers?

ALL those on the right and/or conservatives are ALL considered exactly the same thing from the left: NUTJOBS. Doesnt matter what you "believe" in. why is it that certain conservative bloggers throw the "nutjob" accusation at those conservatives they disagree with in regards to the birth questions?

This is so pathetic & simple to see that as of today, all of the necessary documents that could absolve Obama of any doubt whatsoever, in regards to his birth place origin, have NOT been provided.

This is an outrage.

Yes, i consider Obama president, but he is a liar & deceitful AND is hiding something about his birth. OBAMA IS A LIAR & A VERY BAD PRESIDENT.

...Obama doesnt allow many of his education records released...
AlSO wiki has two places for Obama's birth...
ALSO Obam's grandmother witnessed the birth...IN KENYA!
ALSO Kenya considers Obama being born THERE...

...yet many conservative bloggers dont find this suspicious. ?????

So why should any of us find anything suspicious then?

...why listen to all these gaffs, lies, and thuggish politics pointed out by conservative bloggers, when the birth questions has been put down as "nutty" by those same conservative bloggers who want us to rally around their own conspiracy flags?

The lie about his place of origin is what gives validity to all the other lies.

Why some conservative bloggers dont see this is beyond comprehension....are they waiting for the trees in the woods to hit them over their heads first????


Posted by: lu-ee at July 15, 2009 12:57 PM

Bob: Hate to disagree with this, but I'm in the market of seeing the 'reality' of en situ of whats happening on the ground here. This case is causing MASSIVE ripples here in Iraq. The DOD revocation of the order is unheard of, see the Erehen Watada case per se. (double jepordy, no time, no issue)

Rather than allow this case to proceed to adjudication under UCMJ / Local Courts / or SCOTUS the DOD effectively eliminated the need to. By revoking the orders, 'alles en ordenun' (forgive the bad grammer/sp)

The facinating issue is more that this was a FEILD GRADE officer. The individual in question is a Major. Major is a rank that is considered a 'holding pattern' until they are ready for their 'Light Chicken' (Lt.Col.) I've been around and in and around the professional military my entire adult life, and RARELY do Majors stand up in such a fashion. Also, for the record, very few majors retire/get forced out/end their careers as Majors. The majority (bad pun) go on to the Lt Col. grade, and THEN retire/get forced out after the fact. Majors are superfluous in the modern military to a certain point.

My issue is that the ONLY way the DOD would pre-empt these orders is from on 'higher.' It makes me somewhat wonder if the 'birthers' do have a point. I'm against Obama and his BS... but this lends MAJOR credence to the idea that he's got something to hide.

Like I said... look at how hard they went after LT Watada... fire, brimstone and the kitchen sink, and yet this joker gets a pass??? Something in Denmark ain't quite right

And the troops here know it. And they ARE watching!!! Just sayin'
Yer Man in The Sand
Big Country

Posted by: Big Country at July 15, 2009 01:03 PM

By the by... the Major in question is NOT in direct violation of Article 2 of the UCMJ which states specifcally "a crime for an officer to use contemptuous words against the president, the vice president, Congress, the secretary of defense, the secretary of a military department, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, or the governor or legislature of any state, territory, commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present"

He did none of those... however the 'catchall' Article 134 indicates that "makes criminal those acts of speech that are prejudicial to good order and discipline or that could bring discredit upon the Armed Forces."

Article 134 is usually used to 'fry and dry' anyone who might be 'rising up.' In this case, it waasn't used.

If anything, it shows that his choice of venue and wording kept him from being fried, even under Article 88 which states "Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department,the Secretary of Transportation, or the
Governor or legislature of any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, or possession in which
he is on duty or present shall be punished as
a court-martial may direct."

All he did was ask essentally was "Prove to me you are legally President under the Constitution." and the reaction following, shows there' more to this than meets the eye.

Posted by: Big Country at July 15, 2009 01:16 PM

MadKing......if you are a veteran (as I am) of the armed forces, you should know better. You were sworn to uphold and defend the constitution - not anyone person. You do not swear allegiance to the president, you swear it to the constitution.

Laws and rules matter. Without them, we have arbitrary, personality based "law making".

Barry al Hussein quite likely holds dual citizenship - US and Indonesia. That is probably why he has hidden the records of his past. But I urge you all, the question is not whether or not al Hussein is a US citizen, the question is whether or not he's NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, which is the requirement of the constitution.

Posted by: rssg at July 15, 2009 01:28 PM

Why is it that so many are afraid of a crisis rather than the consequences of ignoring the crisis?

Are we a nation of Neville Chamberlains or Winston Churchills?

Posted by: Honda at July 15, 2009 01:30 PM

"WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records."

What's amazing to me is the amount of energy, political capital and influence that must be required to keep all this information under wraps. As Ben Franklin said, "Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead". Soros, ACORN and company have gotta' be keeping a full court press to keep the lid on. That alone should keep the conspiracy theorist going wide open, but nobody seems to have picked up on it...

Posted by: diogenes online at July 15, 2009 01:36 PM

"Why is it that so many are afraid of a crisis rather than the consequences of ignoring the crisis?

Honda - got nothing to do with fear. It's all politics. Our political ruling class will always follow the path of least resistance. That's one reason why we need the 2nd Amendment. IMO, we're already in a constitutional crisis as we've got an Exec. Branch that's wildly exceeded the power proscribed for it under the Constitution. Funny how that was the left's charge against GWB for eight years...

Posted by: diogenes online at July 15, 2009 01:42 PM

I'm bemused by those who equate "birthers" with truthers.

Truthers are all about DENYING what we all plainly -- or is that planely -- saw, AND which other evidence corroborates.

"Birthers" are about what we HAVEN'T seen, evidence that either doesn't exist, or is being withheld.

Let's not try to use bumper sticker arguments the way the Left does, OK?

Posted by: Bill Smith at July 15, 2009 01:49 PM

African Media: Obama returned to "continent of his birth"

A major Ghanaian news outlet has been caught in a revealing slip-up after it reported that President Barack Obama's recent visit to the African country was a return to his birthplace. -- Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution states, "No person except a natural born citizen... shall be eligible to the office of president."

Posted by: BET at July 15, 2009 01:51 PM

"Obama is President. Even Rush Limbaugh and David Horowitz concede that basic point. GET OVER IT!"

Like any of us can forget this for even ONE second. SIGH!

Posted by: Karen at July 15, 2009 02:40 PM

Based on the faulty recollection of a man entering dementia we now have Bush's dental records from 1972 and Dan Rather and his producer were fired for presenting as true a letter that they could have easily found to be a forgery.

If nothing else, the big story here is the complete media incuriosity about anything having to do with Obama.

And we STILL don't have John Kerry's military records.

Posted by: Locomotive Breath at July 15, 2009 03:04 PM

Why is it that so many are afraid of a crisis rather than the consequences of ignoring the crisis?

Are we a nation of Neville Chamberlains or Winston Churchills?

posted by Honda at July 15, 2009 01:30 PM

Thank you, Honda. That's an excellent insight, worthy of serious reflection.

Although Churchill is rightfully admired for his leadership and courage in saving Britain, in some ways he considered his work a failure- if he had been successful at rallying Europe to resist Hitler early on, the war and his later work would not have been necessary, and the much more massive suffering would have been avoided.

May we all strive to speak and live truthfully.

Best regards, Peter Warner.

Posted by: Peter Warner at July 15, 2009 03:23 PM

"May we all strive to speak and live truthfully."

That's a good phrase.

Posted by: brando at July 15, 2009 03:43 PM

Proud to be a birther.

Obama eligibility case will be heard on merits.

Posted by: Gerald at July 15, 2009 03:45 PM

What I find interesting is that his order WERE revoked. Why, or more specifically, why now?

Where was this suit filed? In a military court? As I read the documents, a military officer WOULD have the right to question the right of an elected President to issue orders when said President has NOT proven NBC eligibility. The officer has a duty to the Constitution to do so. You CANNOT get a US Passport with a "Certificate of Live Birth" from Hawaii; you must have your long form. With the records Obama has shown us, he couldn't even SERVE in the military, let alone command it. Obama's "proof" doesn't qualify. The ratification of election results by Congress doesn't count. They're just confirming the results, not the man's eligibility. The Secretary of State in each of the 50 states is tasked with confirming eligibility of the candidates. In at least 10 states, a foreign-born citizen was on the ballots JUST IN THIS LAST ELECTION! His name wasn't Obama.

So, if this case comes before a military tribunal, this Major will have the right to request proof from President Obama. Obama cannot dodge this through legal tricks. If no proof exists, the MILITARY TRIBUNAL will be FORCED by their oath to the Constitution to remove President Obama from office. They will have no other choice. If President Obama should refuse to leave office, you would THEN have a Constitutional crisis, as there's no provision for the military's removal of a President. It's never happened in this country.

Do you NOW see why Obama is pursuing an well-equipped and armed force of "Brownshirts" inside this country's borders?

I believe the military pulled the orders to allow them time to consider the ramifications of their actions.

If Obama was NOT natural born, then he cannot ever be President, BY OUR LAW. Period. If you've ever taken an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, you're shirking your duty if you DON'T stand up and demand proof!

Posted by: Eric Eikenberry at July 15, 2009 04:05 PM

And for the record, I would FULLY support a President Obama who can PROVE he is a natural-born citizen WITH the proper document. I don't have to like his policies to support the man as President of the United States of America.

But. I. HAVE. to. know.

Posted by: Eric Eikenberry at July 15, 2009 04:07 PM

Bob, I was going to give you a big thumb's up for your honesty and brevity regarding the birther nonsense, then I made the mistake of reading the comments.

Everyone here who was born to a mother who is an American citizen raise your hand. OK, seems like everyone here was born to a mother who is an American citizen.

Everyone here who was born to a father who is an American citizen please raise your hand. OK, cool, again prolly all of us can raise on our hands on both counts.

Umm, birthers? If your mom is a citizen and gives birth to you, guess what? You're an American citizen no matter if you were born in china, Timbuktu, or, like our President, Honolulu. Same goes for your dad, if he's a citizen, so are you.

Obama's birth certificate is real and just because you refuse to recognize fact does not mean you are worth listening to, in fact, you're just asking for the mocking, snickering and outright guffaws directed your way. This isn't difficult question folks. Now I know you hate seeing the Republican party trashed at the polls, ridiculed across the nation and demeaned by we mean ol' liberals, but guess what? This birther nonsense just keeps arrows in our quiver, so please, don't stop. Just don't stop.

Posted by: HumboldtBlue at July 15, 2009 04:33 PM

Madking almost has the politics right but as others observe, the law quite, quite wrong. I would be more enthusiastic about this if Barry hadn't covered his flank with Joe Biden but this response regardless of what the truth is, is a deathtrap for Barry and the Dems. First off, while one could usually, like Madking, dismiss this for post-electoral commity, the simple fact is that John McCain had a very similar question asked of his status given his birth in the Canal Zone. Well, he came up with all his docs. Of course he expressed zero interest in Barry doing the same, yet another mark against this infuriating fool. So stonewalling would appear to be inoperative. When I first read of the suit I thought it would be dismissed or otherwise settled quietly but instead they rescind the orders?!?!?!?!?!? So what do they think will happen? Probably it is similar to their expectations from Iran that a submissive posture will quell the waves. WRONGO! Now there will be dozens of similar claims for reasons ranging from Constitutional scruple to sheer laziness. Will the dismiss them all? What else can they do? That presumes that they cannot produce the documents. If that is the case then they will dismiss and dismiss and the claims will grow and grow to the point where even Barry Backers have to say, look we have to produce the papers. I know it is humiliating to give in to these loony rednecks but it must be done if we are to keep them in harness.
And if the docs are NOT produceable the whole thing is too big to wave off with charges of racism, treason, lunacy, drunkeness... whatever.
I don't care for the dismissive tone towards the Birthers and much less for the identification with the Truthers. It was always uncalled for, Yank, and given the givens of today, even less so. It puts me in mind of the nasty treatment meted out to the Paulians and to Sarah Palin by the establishment. Accusing your right flank of lunacy and dementia should be based on a sound foundation and even then, engaged in with restraint. If Barry does prove to hail from Kenya or have other problems of legitimacy who will be the nut then? As always, time will tell.

Posted by: megapotamus at July 15, 2009 04:34 PM

HumboldtBlue, darling, you seem to be ignorant of the law and the constitution.

Once again, for the slow learners like HumboldtBlue, the requirement to become POTUS is not simply being a citizen (duh!), it's that you MUST BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, which in the days of the Founding Fathers meant, BORN IN THIS NATION'S TERRITORY. Today, we use the term "native born citizen" to distinguish "naturalized citizens" which means immigrants who became US citizens.

McCain was born in Panama, at the time of his birth, Panama was US territory. Furthermore, there is an exemption for babies born to US citizens are active duty in the armed forces (or civilian services) overseas.

Posted by: rssg at July 15, 2009 05:21 PM

The only reason for Obama to hide his birth certificate is to conceal the fact that the birth certificate was issued for a birth not in Hawaii, as Hawaii will issue birth certificates for children of former residents of Hawaii. What has he got to hide? Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is the most likely one. So most likely he was not born in Hawaii or the U.S. To end the "trutherism" as you call it, then why not release the birth certificate.

Posted by: Federale at July 15, 2009 05:31 PM

rssg you have no argument. Obama was born to an American mother in an American state. I could not care less what you want to believe, it makes no difference because the facts betray your silliness. When you can prove that Obama's mother was not an American citizen and that he was not born in Honolulu please get back to us.

Until then, you're a self-deluded fool who has jumped on a band wagon that has no wheels. But please, as I said earlier, keep up with the birther stuff, the laughter generated is good for the soul.

Really, you're funny, in the sad pathetic way Palin is funny, because in your alternate universe it's obvious that ignorance is bliss.

Any human being born in the United States (see, I didn't even have to use all caps) is a citizen, or, if you like, seeing as though you're a Constitutional scholar, a natural born citizen. I'm sure you're one of the folks who also hates the fact that illegal immigrants who give birth to children in the States do so for many reasons, one being that their children are natural born citizens. Sheesh the stupid gets deep.

Posted by: HumboldtBlue at July 15, 2009 06:00 PM

Humboldt, it is you who is ignorant on this topic. McCain was asked almost identical questions about his place of birth, being the Canal Zone and they were perfectly legitimate and were treated so by the media, the Democrats and his Republican opponents. He responded substantively and with documentation. Barack has not. And now by this action they either a) are admitting they cannot so respond or b) they care not to respond but if it is the latter their actions make further challenges of this sort inevitable. Either way you had best strap in.

Posted by: megapotamus at July 15, 2009 06:08 PM

"This case is causing MASSIVE ripples here in Iraq. The DOD revocation of the order is unheard of, see the Erehen Watada case per se."

Best of my knowledge, Watada wasn't an IMA volunteer.

But do clarify "MASSIVE ripples here in Iraq". Beyond the concept of massive ripples or the amazing spread from a WND story to theater-wide situation (of which you're aware) in less than 24 hours, do you mean every Joe from Mosul to Basra is lining up at legal to demand a peak at the President's birth certificate? Do you mean staff at Corps (or higher) are scrambling in preparation for just that?

Or do you mean some guys who caught this on Countdown with Keith Olbermann at the DFAC are pissed that someone weaseled out of a (A'stan in this case) combat tour and wonder who the poor slob is that will get the short-notice non-vol?

Posted by: Greyhawk at July 15, 2009 06:31 PM

It would be illegal to follow an order that was not lawful. And military members do get the training to be able to tell the difference, at least I did.

Posted by: Larry at July 15, 2009 07:09 PM

" He responded substantively and with documentation. Barack has not. "

Yes, he did. What he provided is, contrary to birther self-delusions, perfectly valid legal proof that he was born in Hawaii, and thus is a natural born citizen. The COLB he provided is backed up by the newspaper birth announcements published about the same time in Hawaii. Birther arguments that the "certificate of live birth" is insufficient are simple nonsense. Demands for a mythical "long form" are nonsense.

Posted by: Jon H at July 15, 2009 07:37 PM

Federale wrote: "The only reason for Obama to hide his birth certificate is to conceal the fact that the birth certificate was issued for a birth not in Hawaii, as Hawaii will issue birth certificates for children of former residents of Hawaii."

The birth certificate is online, it says he was born in Hawaii. Get a life.

Posted by: Jon H at July 15, 2009 07:38 PM

Jon, how do you explain these events then? Could the administration really back down, order DOD to cancel this deplyment order for NO reason whatever? "Get a life"? You first.

Posted by: megapotamus at July 15, 2009 07:43 PM

Erik wrote: "What I find interesting is that his order WERE revoked. Why, or more specifically, why now?"

Because it makes the case moot, and thus Army staff don't have to waste taxpayer money in wartime responding to nuisance lawsuits from a crazy, incompetent lawyer. They have more important things to do.

Posted by: Jon H at July 15, 2009 07:47 PM

megapotamus:"Jon, how do you explain these events then? Could the administration really back down, order DOD to cancel this deplyment order for NO reason whatever?"

NO reason? You think the Army wants to waste time and money fighting a crazy lady in court, rather than doing useful things? What's the point?

Canceling his deployment order makes the case moot, so it'll be quickly dismissed, and the Army doesn't have to waste any money on Taitz.

Posted by: Jon H at July 15, 2009 07:51 PM

"Jon, how do you explain these events then? Could the administration really back down, order DOD to cancel this deplyment order for NO reason whatever? "Get a life"? You first.

Posted by: megapotamus at July 15, 2009 07:43 PM"

You're expecting an Obamite to use common sense, mega?

By the way, Obama must really be ticked - the guy was just fired from his CIVILIAN job. Remind you of team Obama's intimidation attacks against Joe The Plumber?

"Pentagon orders soldier fired for challenging prez - Army warrior terminated from job after questioning Obama eligibility"

Posted by: jim vale at July 15, 2009 08:45 PM

Jon H, look at Factcheck's photo #5 ( ) and tell me how they got that seal to not bend when the paper it was on folded. To see what that seal SHOULD look like, trace the circle intersected by the top fold. Why doesn't the seal on the bottom fold have that same kind of distortion?

And then look at Factcheck's photo #1 ( )and tell me what you see immediately under the fold, where the words "Barack Hussein Obama" would be if this was the same paper as on photo #5. Other lines of print show up just fine at that scan quality, focus, and angle. Why is that line missing, if this is really the same document as #5?

I reported this to the local FBI office. The guy told me they don't investigate document fraud. So I went online to report document fraud and the site said they would forward it to.....the FBI. Why did that guy lie to me, if our law enforcement bodies are acting in good faith on this matter?

Obama has committed the federal felony of forgery, spent nearly a million dollars arguing that it's nobody's business whether he's eligible, and now changed his military orders in order to keep these records hidden. What that tells me is that he would do ANYTHING to push this under the rug. IOW, anybody who has access to the proof can name their price and he'll do it.

Sort of scary when you consider that Russia has his passport records from when they detained him as a Senator, which may differ from what America has on file since his passport records were accessed 3 separate times by a person in the company now headed by our national security chief.

Posted by: Nellie at July 15, 2009 09:17 PM

So, this guy volunteers to go the Afghanistan. Army says, OK, dude, cool, we'll schedule you to go. Guy says, yeah but first, you gotta show me the President's birth certificate, so me and my delusional friends can see whether he was born in Kenya. Army says, Uh - thanks, but no thanks, ya fuckin' nutjob.

And this proves... President Obama isn't, in fact, the President of the United States? I am LOVIN' this...

Posted by: NotThatICareBut... at July 15, 2009 10:41 PM

The masses are asses. Keep believing the "official story" because nobody in government ever lies.

Get me outta here.

Posted by: Lauren Hall at July 15, 2009 10:50 PM

"...I happen to think that Birthers are nuts, which makes this all the more befuddling..."

That's a good word for you...befuddled.

Posted by: Jonny Amplesack at July 15, 2009 10:54 PM

"That's a good word for you...befuddled."

(While I'm not sure, re: this blogger): That's a good word for much of the neoliberal and Establishment 'conservative' Blogosphere!

Posted by: Aakash at July 15, 2009 11:32 PM

As long as Obama doesn't prove his birth and thus his right to be president, anyone who challenges that right is quite correct in doing so.

He may or may not be a legitimate US born citizen, but no evidence to that effect has ever been produced and there's a mountain of indications that he's nothing of the kind.

As said, disciplinary action would be out of place here. A soldier is sworn to the constitution, not yet the president.
And if the president is not an American born citizen, he's a usurper and any orders issued by him or in his name are illegal and following them a crime.
In fact if the president is not legalle entitled to the post the military has a legal requirement to see that president removed from office, like was done in Honduras. That's part of their job, to "protect the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic", the latter of which would apply to a president who's not entitled to the job and refuses to leave it voluntarilly.

Posted by: J.T. Wenting at July 16, 2009 12:01 AM

Obama is not a natural born citizen, no way, but I, like most or many others who know this, don't depend on the birth certificate for this position, so am not sure I'd fit the "birther" label that well -- not that Obama has ever provided the public with a birth certificate, as opposed to a certificaTION (most likely fraudulent, at that).

Anyway, this Maj. Cook's a hero in my eyes, not refusing to go, just wanting confirmation that Obama is a natural born citizen, so that Cook would be complying with his oaths & law to obey *legal* orders. On top of that he vowed to God to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic.

I just pray lawyers in this & other cases don't end up shot like Lt Quarles Harris. Already engineer Maj. Cook was fired from his private job under pressure from the government.

Posted by: ER at July 16, 2009 06:48 AM

oh dear, I see from comments some people don't realize that it's not a matter of if Obama is a citizen or not (though he may not be if he has Indonesian citizenship, very possible for several reasons), nor does it help if Obama's a naturalized citizen, or even if he is a native born citizen, he must be a *natural born* citizen.

Posted by: ER at July 16, 2009 06:52 AM

Jon, this is an efficiency measure? They don't want to waste time fighting it? Perhaps like Sotomayor your understanding of our legal system comes from your exposure to Perry Mason but there is this concept called "precedent", that is what we do today we will also do tomorrow barring changes. So now there is a precedent that an active military member can get an order rescinded by filing a lawsuit and will not even have to contend that lawsuit. Genius. The orders of the DOD are now utterly optional. And this standard does not apply merely to the military. Any federal employee could contest the legitimacy of any policy directive of the Executive in the same way and this is to keep DOJ operations streamlined? Pathetic. I had thought there was a bit of destupification going on among Obama's sycophantic and braindead disciples. Nope. He doesn't even have to come up with his transparent and vapid lies anymore. You morons will come up with them yourselves.

Oh and for the gleeful Lefties who say, "Keep it up, this is ridiculous!"

Posted by: megapotamus at July 16, 2009 07:02 AM

"Already engineer Maj. Cook was fired from his private job under pressure from the government. "

He was fired because his security clearance was revoked. Which will happen when you ask to be deployed to Afghanistan and then do a 180 and refuse to be deployed in a PR stunt.

No security clearance, no DOD-related job. Simple as that.

Posted by: TR at July 16, 2009 08:18 AM

You get security clearance denied if you ask a question? He didn't refuse to go anywhere; he was asking for proof that going would be a lawful order.

In Iran asking questions is verboten. When did it become verboten here in America? Oh, that's right. When Obama threatened to have the White House news corp decimate Chrysler investors who availed themselves of our legal system to ask questions, and when his thugs threatened to have the IRS trump up some charges against them. Just for presenting a valid question.

At least Obama is consistent. Consistent as death.

Posted by: Nellie at July 16, 2009 10:51 AM

Of course the who controvery can be finished by Obama releasing the birth certificate, but that will not happen. It will not happen because the original will show that his birth was not in Hawaii. It is that simple. There is no other reason for him not to release his birth certificate.

Posted by: Federale at July 16, 2009 11:09 AM

The decision to revoke the orders and force somebody else to go at a minute's notice was the DOD's decision. They had two options: answer the question, thus putting every soldier's mind at ease, giving them all Geneva Convention protections, and preventing a bad precedent OR they could avoid the question by forcing somebody else to go at a minute's notice.

What did they choose? What Obama ALWAYS chooses - to shaft somebody else to save his own sorry behind.

It is incredibly rude to force somebody - maybe even somebody with a family - to go to Afghanistan with little notice. I share your disgust with that.

Why did the DOD make that choice?

Posted by: Nellie at July 16, 2009 11:32 AM

just for the sake of arguement...has any one proven that obama was born in the us? or should i go under my original assumption and think all the hub bub is just a cover up?

Posted by: grady strickland at July 16, 2009 01:12 PM

"It's not illegal to question an order, it is illegal to not follow an order."

Incorrect. It is not illegal to disobey an unlawful order, it is the obligation of every service member to disobey an unlawful order.

As I see it, until the O proves that he can legally be president, then there are no lawful orders at all.

Posted by: Matt at July 16, 2009 01:18 PM

Grady -- yes, it's been proven that he was born in the U.S.

The State of Hawaii, on one of its web sites (, states clearly that "Certifications of Live Birth ... are official government records documenting an individual’s birth." Further, it states that "the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth."

Obama has a Certification of Live Birth that states he was born in Honolulu. Some people are so unhappy with him that they are arguing that he's not eligible to be POTUS. But the same people have been saying it for a long time and have no real evidence to support it.

Posted by: Doubtful at July 16, 2009 01:24 PM

@Matt -- "As I see it, until the O proves that he can legally be president, then there are no lawful orders at all."

Please be careful. DoD had an easy way out with Cook -- since he volunteered to go, he also had the option of changing his mind.

I have a feeling that if anyone tried to refuse an involuntary order on the same grounds, punishment would be swift and sure.

And if that happened, I wouldn't want to be identified as someone who encouraged that sort of behavior.

I think you know what I mean.

Posted by: BigGuy at July 16, 2009 01:51 PM

Doubtful, read the posts before this and tell me how an authentic, 3-D document when photographed

1) has a seal that doesn't bend when the paper it's on folds,

2) loses only one line of print when it is photographed sideways, and

3) has a raised surface which doesn't show up on a computer scan of it even with edge detection applied to the image.

That COLB image proves nothing, but strongly suggests that Obama committed document fraud rather than show a legitimate, authenticated COLB - even though he could have requested one that verified only his name and birth place. Even now, he could authorize Hawaii to verify what is on the COLB he posted, BUT HE WON'T. Why not?

Posted by: Nellie at July 16, 2009 02:33 PM

Big Guy, if a soldier refuses to obey an involuntary but unlawful order that would be against the UCMJ, would it not? A soldier can't excuse himself for doing an unlawful act just because he was ordered to do it, can he?

That's the issue here. If Obama's orders are lawful, Cook says he will follow them. If they are not lawful he would be breaking the UCMJ to follow them AND without lawful orders to be in Afghanistan he would be classified as a non-military combatant if captured on the battlefield, thus not qualified to receive Geneva Convention protections.

That's the argument he's made. Is that argument incorrect?

Posted by: Nellie at July 16, 2009 02:39 PM

Nellie, those are silly, long since debunked arguments -- even WorldNetDaily is on the record saying:

"A separate WND investigation into Obama's certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there."

The presentation of a forged document is a serious crime. The governor of Hawaii is a Republican. Both houses of Congress voted unanimously to accept the results of the Electoral College. If the forgery is as obvious as you say it is, why has no one credible even mentioned it?

There are rumors and innuendos and fake charges. But there is no there there.

Posted by: Doubtful at July 16, 2009 02:44 PM

@Nellie --

I am not a lawyer. My understanding is that Obama has been legally elected and sworn in and is currently the POTUS. Military orders must still be obeyed.

It makes no sense to me that any member of the military can say at any time, I'm not going to obey your orders because I don't think you're eligible to be POTUS -- and then the whole system has to grind to a halt while the President tries to satisfy one person's doubts.

If, as you say in another post, there are obvious signs of forgery on his COLB, that's a criminal matter and should be dealt with by a prosecutor.

Any member of the military who takes it upon himself to test the President's eligibility by refusing to follow orders is taking a mighty big risk.

Posted by: BigGuy at July 16, 2009 02:52 PM

I hear what you're saying, BigGuy, and I agree that a military can't function if the soldiers second-guess their leadership at every turn. You would hope that if Congress certifies someone as president, he's eligible. But Dick Cheney never even asked the question of whether there were objections, and even if he had it wouldn't have made any difference because Pelosi had already said that objections had to be written and turned in ahead of time.

Seems to me that Hitler also had the cover of being certified, if I remember correctly. That didn't excuse anybody at Nuremburg, though.

I reported the signs of forgery to my local FBI. You know what I was told? We don't investigate document fraud. So then I went online and filed a report which the site said they would forward to the FBI. I'm not holding my breath on them acting on it. A law enforcement officer in Texas (?)began to investigate the claims and ended up being disciplined for "racial prejudice on the job". I e-mailed my local sheriff. He said it's interesting but they don't have funds to investigate the President of the US.

Those who believe the eligibility issue is a mere technicality are missing the issue that our law enforcement isn't investigating clear signs of forgery - most probably because they don't want to be derided as a "birther". Now THAT'S a secure foundation for our criminal justice system... junior high sticks and stones...

If Obama committed document fraud when trying to prove his eligibility, what should happen to him? As you say, Congress already certified him. Does that mean we, the people, have no ability to petition the government for a redress of the grievance of breaking our Constitution? Would he serve as president from jail?

The whole thing is a mess. If the people who allowed this to happen aren't held accountable for it we can kiss the rule of law good-bye.

Posted by: Nellie at July 16, 2009 03:10 PM

@Nellie --

Some of what you say is not quite right. The requirement that objections be made in writing did not come from Nancy Pelosi -- it is a requirement of federal law (United States Code, Chapter 1, Section 15): "Every objection shall be made in writing."

I don't think anyone is saying that "the eligibility issue is a mere technicality." What they're saying is that there's no valid evidence of ineligibility.

I mean, I understand that you're disappointed that the FBI didn't do what you wanted them to do. But -- may I say this without offending you? -- has it occurred to you that the "clear signs of forgery" that you think you're seeing simply aren't what you think they are? Remember, WorldNetDaily stated unambiguously that they found the COLB to be authentic.

Posted by: BigGuy at July 16, 2009 03:22 PM

Thanks for the reference to the US Code. Do you have any idea how I could see that? Does the law also require the question to be asked verbally?

There's no valid evidence of either ineligibility OR eligibility. Posting a scan or photo online is not acceptable documentation for any government purpose. The question is who the burden of proof falls on. The Twentieth Amendment says that between the electoral vote and the inauguration a president who "fails to qualify" cannot be president. Seems to me that that puts the burden of proof on the one who wants the job.

What do you think, BigGuy? Do you think a real seal would stay perfectly round when the paper it's on folds? Do you think that a paper would lose just one line of print when it's photographed on its side? Do you think that a document with a surface raised so much that it can be shown in relief when photographed sideways would show no signs of that raised surface when a computer scan of it has edge detection applied?

If the FBI wanted to tell me I was crazy or that the evidence wasn't sufficient, etc, fine. They didn't do that. They told me, instead, that it is not their concern. I asked who DOES investigate document fraud. He didn't know.

And I'm supposed to accept on faith that if Obama was ineligible these dudes would have found it out by now? What a joke. Except I'm not laughing. I want my country back.

Posted by: Nellie at July 16, 2009 03:36 PM

@Nellie --

The Federal Code citation that I found is at a National Archives site, You have to scroll down, the Constitutional provisions are shown first.

I agree that one can't prove anything with an online image. But what's the option? You can't expect a candidate to mail a hard copy to every individual in the country. In fact, I can't think of a single presidential candidate other than Obama who even went so far as to post a birth certificate image online. There are those who say he shouldn't even have done that as it only led to more questions, and I'm beginning to agree.

"And I'm supposed to accept on faith that if Obama was ineligible these dudes would have found it out by now?" Well, I don't know what your options are. We have a large criminal justice apparatus on both the state and federal levels. All it takes is a single prosecutor to bring a case. I am absolutely certain that there are plenty of law enforcement officials who are opposed to Obama, but not a single one has raised his or her voice about this -- and there was plenty of time for one to do it.

To my way of thinking, the only way out is to posit a gigantic conspiracy to silence them, and I just don't find that even remotely credible.

But I understand that your view may be different.

Posted by: BigGuy at July 16, 2009 03:58 PM

All that has to be produced is his mothers birth certificate. I don't believe her citizenship has been questioned. According to the Title 8 of the U.S. Code he is a natural born citizen of the USA.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Posted by: Earl Lawson at July 16, 2009 04:50 PM

Thanks for the link.

JPG images of John McCain's birth certificate with accompanying affidavits and doctor's signature are posted at

Regarding conspiracies to not investigate, I don't know if it even requires that. This whole ordeal has been eye-opening for me, regarding just how bad our law enforcement is now.

I don't think it's a conspiracy, but disciplining the LE person who begins an investigation - accusing them of racial discrimination on the job - is definitely an effective way to silence the little investigators.

When I reported this to my local sheriff he said it was interesting but they don't have funds to investigate the POTUS. When I called the FBI, as I said, they said they don't investigate that. When I contacted my US Attorney they said they can't take cases from the public but I could have the FBI forward it to them...

I talked to my SOS who told me they only require the candidate to sign a statement saying they were eligible. But he assured me that ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN would never allow a politician to get away with deception.

As I understand it, a Senator (don't remember which one) referred the case to the FBI but the FBI hasn't done anything with it, at least last I knew. I'm sure they told the Senator that they don't investigate document fraud...

Leo Donofrio, Phil Berg, Cort Wrotnowski, and Orly Taitz all got their cases as far as the SCOTUS, who were reported to have found the issue not serious enough to address - but when Taitz asked Scalia in person about those cases he knew nothing about them.

I called my 2 Senators' offices and my representative's office and had the office staff look with me at the Factcheck documents and how the seal was perfectly round though the circle on the top fold which was folded at about the same angle was definitely distorted. They all agreed it was fishy and assured me that they would let their boss know. Later I got letters from them saying "I've seen no evidence that Obama is not eligible..." I called back and chewed them out. They said I could send a direct e-mail... (which I had already also done before)

Sorry to be so long about this, but I hope you can see why I've come to view the military as the last guardians of this country's integrity and Constitution. That's why this whole Major Cook thing means more to me - and to him - than just some soldier backing out at the last minute. There's a whole long history of law enforcement slapping me and others in the face over this.

SCOTUS and other courts have repeatedly denied "standing" - in effect saying it's none of my damn business if my country becomes a banana republic. I lose nothing of value if I lose my country.

I know I'm among friends here who would lay down their lives in the belief that we DO lose something of infinite worth if we lose this country. I would love to be able to say it doesn't matter, just go on my merry way. But like it or not, I love this country and everything she has stood for these past two centuries. I love my kids and don't want to deny them the same freedom my parents bequeathed and entrusted to me.

I am no more able to stop Congress from blatantly breaking the law than I am to stop Obama from blatantly breaking the Constitution and forgery laws. We have become a nation where criminals-in-office call the shots at will and the rest of us have nothing but the (if we can keep it) 2nd Amendment to defend ourselves. If we don't draw a line in the sand SOMEWHERE and insist on the law being kept, this country is done.

Posted by: Nellie at July 16, 2009 04:54 PM

Earl Lawson, what the law is now doesn't matter because according to Constitutional interpretation laws can't be applied retroactively. So what matters is the law in effect in 1961.

That law said that a person could confer citizenship to their foreign-born offspring only if they (the parent) were at the time of the birth a citizen of the US for 10 years, with at least 5 of them being after the age of 14.

Obama's mother was a citizen but was not yet 19 when Obama was born. She could not confer citizenship to him if he was born outside the country. That's why the place of his birth makes such a difference.

Posted by: Nellie at July 16, 2009 05:00 PM

Well, Nellie, best of luck to you. If you're convinced that Obama's guilty of forgery, you're going to have a hard time establishing that -- either because, as you believe, of "how bad our law enforcement is," or because, as I believe, there is absolutely no credible evidence of a crime having been committed.

But, I urge you, please be careful. Don't ask our brave and patriotic military people to disobey orders for this reason. Even if you think it's the right thing to do, what if you're wrong? What if, as the vast majority of Americans believe, Obama is eligible to be president? Do you want our folks in uniform to destroy their careers over some accusations that very few people take seriously?

Posted by: BigGuy at July 16, 2009 05:22 PM

My godson/nephew is Marine ROTC due to graduate next year. I have said nothing to him about this. What any military person does is entirely up to their own conscience and I understand the deep moral dilemma. Our military people are my heroes and I would die before I would deliberately bring them to harm.

I wish I could tell him that he was going into a military where earnest questions pursued in a respectful and lawful manner wouldn't destroy his career. I guess the military is more political than either he or I thought it was.

I've issued the invitation elsewhere for anybody to post on Youtube a video of a document where

1) a circle on the top fold distorts with the fold but the circle on the bottom fold doesn't,

2) the page loses only one longest line of print when it is photographed on its side, and

3)an image raising the paper surface (so much that its relief can be shown in a side view) shows no sign of an image when edge detection is applied to its scan.

Apparently these phenomena don't seem strange to you. If you can show me any way to duplicate these results I will gladly eat my hat, buy you a beer, and go back to making cookies. I trust that you are patriotic, brave, and earnest - as I have also found Bob to be. You've certainly given me a respectful hearing and I appreciate that. All I ask is that you think about what I've said and arrive at your own conclusions.

God bless the USA!

Posted by: Nellie at July 16, 2009 05:48 PM

@Nellie --

"Apparently these phenomena don't seem strange to you."

Well, to tell you the truth, Nellie, this is what I think.

The governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, is a Republican. She campaigned for McCain. I'm sure she's appointed other Republicans to state administration positions. And I'm sure that some of them would have been very eager to help McCain get elected.

The State of Hawaii has access to all the records, and if Obama was not born in Hawaii, they know it.

To me it is inconceivable beyond my wildest dreams that they would not have found a way to leak this information to ensure McCain's victory.

And even more inconceivable is the thought that Obama would have risked incarceration by relying on the minuscule chance that not a single soul would say a single word.

So, when you speak of phenomena seeming strange to me, I can't get beyond the ones I mentioned. They absolutely shut down the case for me.

Yes, thanks for your kind words, and all the best to you!

Posted by: BigGuy at July 16, 2009 06:28 PM

I know what you mean. I also never thought it could happen here. I appreciate your honest response. It makes sense.

But I think there are other factors at play also. McCain wouldn't even let Sarah Palin talk about Obama's known relationship with Bill Ayers. He campaigned on the whole thing of being civil, a nice guy who gets along with everybody. And he, having been born outside the country, would be the last person to bring up Obama's birthplace.

Obama is all about lawsuits. Remember what he did with the NRA ad? He threatened lawsuits to any media who broadcast them. If anybody had come up with official documents which could prove his ineligibility they would have been sued out of existence. It is in both the terrorists' and communists' playbooks to use lawsuits to overwhelm and threaten anybody they want to be quiet little sheep.

It really raised my eyebrows when Obama's attorney against Berg was a lawyer for CAIR. CAIR's tactic is suing people into fear - such as threatening to sue the Minneapolis passengers who reported the "flying imams'" suspicious behavior. Anybody who reported suspicious behavior would do so knowing they'd have to spend their entire life's savings defending themselves in lawsuits financed by Muslims' required "charity" contributions and Saudi oil money.

It would have been legal suicide for someone to look at that stuff and then tell what they saw.

And it would have been political suicide to expose what the media had already decided was America's first Black president. Heck, the wife of our former "first black president" was called a racist in the primary. You can call Hillary many things, but I don't think racist is a fair label. But the Obama media slung it around like it was nothing - in response to her questioning the Rezko connection, if I remember correctly. A very transparent political ploy on Obama's part. He never did the dirty work; his handlers did.

Furthermore, anybody who said they had seen it would have no way to document that's what they saw. They couldn't go in front of the public and show them the record; that's exactly what Obama's entire case is about.

Obama wasn't risking a whole lot, actually. He had no other choice but to do something or he would lose. And if he wasn't born in Hawaii then he may well not even be a US citizen at all. What would the government do to him if he got caught? Deport him to Indonesia?

But I think we need only look at the Chicago-type tactics that Obama has used openly (see for a partial listing) to realize that he's not a lone, defenseless little lamb. He's surrounded himself with all the right people. They know how to handle people who talk too much.

The result? People don't talk much.

And Obama also had the media to cover for him. Every blog in the world is afraid of being labeled a "birther" site. It's good old junior high peer pressure, but it's very, very effective. Who would voluntarily choose to be ridiculed for something they can't even prove anyway? I can confirm that it's not pleasant watching all the "conservatives" you admire call you a nutcase and shoo you away or shut you up.

Orly Taitz had the wiring in her car cut the same week her husband's car had something potentially lethal come up (can't remember the specifics). NOt something that happens accidentally. But every fool in the world will call her crazy for "dreaming up conspiracy theories" if she says anything about it. And some of the intimidation tactics could actually drive a person crazy. Who would voluntarily choose to subject themselves to that?

I feel like someone from Orwell's "1984" who's being told I'm crazy or extreme if I still see 3 fingers when the whole rest of the world (except us crazies. lol) sees only 2. But I can't get my lyin' eyes to see my experiments turning out like the posted COLB's. I just can't find a way to make it possible. So what can I do? Live with myself, or get the world's approval?

I enjoy conversing with you BigGuy. You're reasonable. And patient. lol. Sorry this is so long.

Posted by: Nellie at July 16, 2009 07:06 PM

Bigguy "I think you know what I mean."

Don't worry brother. I got out shortly after the O took office.

Posted by: Matt at July 17, 2009 01:11 PM

The birther major's deployment orders were canceled because, when he volunteered to deploy to Afghanistan he had the absolute right to change his mind up to the day of deployment. The army took his lawsuit seeking to have his deployment be enjoined as an exercise of that right.

He and his crackpot lawyer should be hit with rule 11 sanctions, since it is obvious that their entire course of conduct was a fraud on the court: it is entirely unnecessary to sue to receive a remedy that you can get with a letter and a first-class stamp.

Posted by: John Casey at July 18, 2009 03:49 PM

John. Even if you volunteer for a deployment, you can not change your mind. That is kind of like saying that you volunteered to join the military so you can get out at any time you choose.

This is not the case. As soon as your name appears on deployment orders you can not refuse them.

Posted by: Matt at July 19, 2009 02:55 PM

how much more does it take to prove that something very fishy is going on here?

the military doesn't do 180's on deployment orders over nothing.

every single effort to force Obama to prove his natural born status has been thrown out or blocked in some fashion.

is the Constitution the Law of the Land or isn't it?

right now, it isn't

Posted by: shoey at July 19, 2009 07:11 PM

I have no problems with a person questioning his or her orders. But orders need to be valid orders from the superiors appointed over you. Thats what the oath says. "To Support and Defend the Constitution of The United States Againt all Enemies Forgien or Domestic and to obey the orders of the President and Officer appointed over you". I absolutley have no problem with that. I took the same oath! So if your leaders are not legitimate it is not a valid order. What need to happen is to have a mass Rally demmanding an open and honest investigation into "The Ones" status. I cannot believe that people can't see the truth here. If you have nothing to hide, then why hide it?

Posted by: Faithful Patriot at July 21, 2009 11:40 AM