One Major Stefan Frederick Cook, United States Army Reservist to be precise. Major Cook has managed to energise virtually every conspiracy and counter conspiracy loon on both sides of the Atlantic until they glow in the dark.

‘Tis a fascinating tale, snippets of which may have crossed your path in the dim and distant past.

Major Cook was recently issued with orders to deploy to Afghanistan. He wasn’t filled with glee at the prospect. It is how he has chosen to voice his concientious objection to this deployment that has divided the American people.

His orders were issued by his Army commanders. Those commanders posses the power to deploy him by virtue of the authority of the President, since Obama himself must possess the authority of President in order to delegate it to the Army, Major Cook has demanded that Obama prove he has this authority before he can lawfully delegate authority to order Major Cook to Afghanistan.

There have been over a dozen lawsuits filed since the inauguration disputing Obama’s eligibility to be President, complaints that the Oath was incorrectly administered, on the wrong date, at the wrong time; you may have heard of some of them. All have been dismissed.

This challenge is somewhat different. This challenge required the court to look into Obama’s parentage, and his claim to be a ‘natural born citizen’ of the US.

After Cook’s lawsuit was filed, but before the case was heard, the Army revoked his orders to deploy to Afghanistan, they didn’t court martial him, they didn’t discharge him, they didn’t declare him insane – they just quietly agreed that, OK, he needn’t go to Afghanistan if he didn’t want to.

The court was thus given the ‘out’ that they needed proceed no further with their investigation into Obama. Opening the flood gates to lawsuits disputing Obama’s parentage to anyone else who would really rather not go to Afghanistan.

Major Cook’s lawyer argues that Obama must not only have been born in the US to be a ‘natural born citizen’ and thus eligible for the Office of President (and there is a shortened form of his birth certificate available from the court records in Hawaii to anyone who is interested) but that also his father must have been a US citizen not owing allegiance to any other nation.

Thereby lies the problem. At the time of Obama’s birth, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr, was a subject of the British Commonwealth in Kenya and thereby owed allegiance to Queen Elizabeth.This would be seen on the full version of Obama’s Birth Certificate and this he has steadfastly refused to produce.

The requirement to be a ‘natural born citizen’ was written into the US Constitution in 1787 and could only have drawn on Vattel’s 1758 ‘Law of Nations’ for its intended meaning of the term, since there was no other definition in existence at the time, nor has there been any amendment to the constitution since that could have changed its meaning. The 14th amendment is another red herring that has no bearing on the requirements for the Office of President.

There doesn’t seem to be any doubt that Obama was born in the USA, although this does seem to rest on newspaper announcements of that fact, and of course you can announce the birth of your child in Kazakhstan if you so wish, the real issue seems to be ‘who did his Father owe allegiance to at the time of his birth’. Conveniently, another red herring appears to be that when the Hawaiian registry system was computerised, the original records were destroyed. (Americans destroying their meagre heritage? Do I believe that?)

Even amongst American commentators there is an almighty confusion between being ‘an American Citizen’ and being a ‘Natural born Citizen’ and the requirements for each. The legal situation is quite simple – being a ‘natural born citizen’ requires both that you are born in the US and of a Father who is a US citizen but not necessarily a natural born citizen.

Quite where the US goes from here is unclear, it seems to be a choice between battalions of soldiers demanding to see Obama’s full birth certificate before deigning to join our troops in Afghanistan, or Obama being dragged from office by the CIA – they can’t even impeach him if he’s not actually President!

Perhaps some of our British troops might like to take note of this before they are sent out to Afghanistan to support the American troops – who may not be rightfully deployed there?

Could this be why there is no word of Major Cook in the Main Stream Media – including the BBC?

1
WitteringsfromWitney
July 27, 2009 at 13:47

Nice spot Anna! Logic dictates that if there were no problem the full birth certificate would be produced – why not?

You can hardly expect a ‘constitutional’ problem like this to be aired on the BBC surely, hence why the surprise/question?

2
mnairb
July 27, 2009 at 13:59

I think you will find that the Biased Broadcasting Corporation have been too busy rubbishing Sarah Palin this weekend to concern themselves with trivial matters like Obama’s birth certificate – particularly as the BBC think he is the new Messiah.

3
Martin Woodhead
July 27, 2009 at 14:18

mans a cock
he should resign the walting fool

4
Saul
July 27, 2009 at 14:29

Yet another thick American, there doesn’t seem to be a shortage of them.

Why is the Prat wearing his uniform?

5
Anna Raccoon
July 27, 2009 at 14:32

You want thick Saul?

I believe I am right in saying that if Obama gets kicked out, they get Joe Biden………or is it Hilary Clinton?

6
Saul
July 27, 2009 at 14:35

…….perhaps Michael Jackson’s nose could run for President.

7
Anna Raccoon
July 27, 2009 at 14:40

and yet another President gets run out of office for being blown once too often?….I think not Saul!

8
Ch
July 27, 2009 at 16:57

14th amendment:

9
Demetrius
July 27, 2009 at 18:59

As someone whose birth certificate has a couple of “glosses” this is intriguing, all the more because of its constitutional implications. In the case of President Obama, it is clear he won the election, and equally that he had the nomination of the Democrats. The original clause was designed to prevent Loyalists from bringing in a spare member of the then extensive Royal Family. I am sure that this does not apply any more. The BBC however, tends to avoid stories that rest on critical details, their interns aren’t really up to it.

10
barnacle bill
July 27, 2009 at 20:59

It would appear that Barack Junior has learnt a few tricks from our very own snake oil salesman, Tony Wots His Name, records getting lost and now a dodgy birth certificate.

11
Messianic story resurfaces
July 28, 2009 at 01:19

This story was in the news before Obama was elected.Somehow,the story on many Republican radio stations was lost in the flood of election euphoria.

12
Coolpillow
July 28, 2009 at 02:10

Love the way the the out of country papers, bloggers and online publications pick up on IMPORTANT stories that our State Run, Government American Lame Stream Media won’t touch.

CNN’s Lou Dobbs brought up the subject and now CNN is on his azz and his editors are making him back away from it.

Polls are showing that 80% of the American people want to see the birth certificate.

Major Cook is a highly decorated COMBAT Veteran with an impressive background, training and education.

He has been to Iraq and Afghanistan and has had scud missiles shot at his head.

His well thought out consideration of how he and his comrades in arms- because he knew if they caught and captured American soldiers overseas, they would have no protections under the Geneva Conventions if this “president” is found to be a fraud.

And- he will- thanks to this alternate media- and the fact that the American “sheeple” are beginning to smell a Chicago thug delivered to the White House courtesy of ACORN.

13
Saul
July 28, 2009 at 07:51

Americans…don’t you just love them.

14
Ch
July 28, 2009 at 12:35

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/counting-the-electoral-vote/#more-3325

15
Anna Raccoon
July 28, 2009 at 13:24

Not so fast Ch

16
Habitual Smoker
July 28, 2009 at 15:10

Anna Raccoon,

On what basis do you assume that “natural born citizen” as written in the US Constitution has the same definition as “indigenes” in Emerich Vattel’s Les Droit des Gens?

On what basis do you discount the possibility that it may be defined differently?

Have you considered the implications of your position if you are correct? Because, if you are correct, then both Obama and McClain were ineligable to become President. Neither meet the requirements for Vattel’s “indigenes”. McClain was not born on Sovereign US territory; Obama’s father was not a US citizen.

Do I need to remind you of the full implications of this?

Habitual Smoker

17
Anna Raccoon
July 28, 2009 at 15:39

Vattel’s entire thesis was that society could not perpetuate itself other than through the children of its citizens.
That is how the children of Amercian citizens born outside of the country are able to take the nationality of their parents. They also have the option to hold dual nationality.
I take the meaning both from Vattell, (Les naturels, ou indignes font ceux qui font nes dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens – excuse lack of accents, wrong computer for that!) and from the natural ordinary meaning of the words. Also from sheer logic – the framers of the consitution would have been most worried by the implication that a pregnant member of the British Royal Family could produce an offspring able to take the Presidency simply by being in the US at the time of confinement……
Of course I have considered the implications! It matters not a jot who is caught by this confusion, on which side of the political divide, nor how many people may have transgressed it in the past.
It does matter that now the matter has been raised, there are those who would seek to sweep the matter under the carpet rather than face the implications.

18
Tom Degan
July 28, 2009 at 15:29

Barack Hussein Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in the state of Hawaii. That was the week the Berlin Wall went up.

Coincidence? I wonder.

This evil, subversive plot has been in the making for damned near forty-eight years! By all evidence, since the moment of Obama’s birth! Here is a question that all good and decent Americans should demand an immediate answer to: Was the newspaper, the Honolulu Advertiser, in on the scheme when they printed little Barack’s bogus birth announcement on August 9, 1961? Just where the hell does that paper lean editorially? To the hard Left, I strongly suspect. Wouldn’t that just figure!

The NAACP, in coercion with the American Communist Party, Democracy NOW and Ed Asner, concocted this evil plot deep in the basement of Norm Chomskey’s home in Cambridge, Massachusetts in the midst of a week-long peyote mushroom binge. The elevation of this dangerous and subversive man to the highest office in this grand and glorious land of ours is only the first step in their dastardly plan. Their next objective will be to force our daughters – our little personifications of patriotism and purity – to court and co-mingle with NEGROES.

Before very long our children – your children – will be physically forced to memorize whole chapters of James Baldwin’s “Native Son” and “The Autobiography Of Malcolm X”. Trust me, it’s only a matter of time.

They must be stopped. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the country that we all hold so dear to our freedom-loving hearts. America is falling; victimized by forces who would put a foreign-born A-Rab in the seat that was once held by the sainted Ronald Reagan – RONALD REAGAN, I TELL YOU!

My friends, now is not the time for the faint-of-heart. It a time for boldness and stoutness of mind and spirit. Only our collective intestinal fortitude will defeat the Liberal cabal – those nattering nabobs of negativism – who would burn our beloved country down. The time has come to give America back to the real Americans. My fellow citizens, you ignore me at your own peril….

And one more thing we must never ever forget: Barack and Michelle Obama named their two daughters, “Sasha” and “Malia”. What’s that all about?

Of course, what you just read is meant as satire. Only a complete and utter fool could possibly take any of it seriously. The really disturbing thing, however, is the fact that there are millions of people out there who would read those last eight paragraphs and wouldn’t even come close to getting the joke. While there is plenty of satirical gold to be siphoned from the bottomless mine that these lunatics have provided us with, they have created a dangerous atmosphere that is enabling the nuttiest angels of the American nature. That is something that would do us all well to think about.

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

19
Anna Raccoon
July 28, 2009 at 15:59

You nearly had me foaming at the mouth until I reached the last paragraph, Tom!

It is amazing how this issue has so many people who would prefer to sweep the matter under the carpet than discuss the legal issues, or to pretend that it is a racist matter.

It wasn’t a racist matter when Chester Arthur made the same deception, and since he was one of the framers of the 14th amendment, I would have thought that there was ample opportunity for the Constitution to be changed then if they had wanted the meaning to merely be ‘an american citizen.

So much fuss, so much money, just to avoid releasing one birth certificate that would settle the matter!

20
Habitual Smoker
July 28, 2009 at 18:29

Anna Raccoon,

You quoted (I will also ignore the accents but update to modern script): “Les Naturels, ou Indignes sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens”. This translates as: “The Naturals, or Indiginous are those that are born in the country of Citizen Parents.”

McCain fails the “born in the country” element, Obama fails the “of Citizen Parents” part.

You cannot claim that one is absolved from this requirement, but not the other.

Moreover, you cannot claim that Vattel’s “entire thesis ….” when the part you mention takes up just a couple of lines in a mammoth study of the intra and inter-state relations. Vattels ‘Les Droits des Gens” is not a thesis about sustaining a state by certain births, its about how a state regulates itself and with others.

It is also quite dishonest to assume that McCain would be able to circumvent his failure to meet the definition of “Naturel” as you claim, when Vattel clearly explains the case of those born on foreign soil to citizens as becoming “Citoyens” not “Naturels” – if the law of the land permits it. Note, they become Citoyen not Naturel. (Would you like me to quote this part because I notice it is not included on the ‘birthers’ website?)

Your argument is based on Obama not being a Naturel even though you accept he is a Citoyen. According to the definitions you use to justify this, McCain too is a Citoyen not a Naturel.

If your thesis is correct, the implications are that the US’ entire system of governance is illegitimate in that both the main candidates selected to run for President fail the “natural born citizen” test. Every institution that derives its authority from the President, is thus illegitimate.

Why do you dismiss William Blackstone’s 1765-1769 Commentary defining the concept of “natural-born subjects” as having any influence on the words “natural-born citizen”?

Why do you dismiss the Georgia Charter 1732 that defines “natural born Subjects” as having any influence on the words “natural born citizen”?

Both of these two documents have more relevence in both word content and connection with the US than the treatise of a Swiss philosopher.

Habitual Smoker

21
Anna Raccoon
July 28, 2009 at 19:19

Habitual Smoker.

I do not claim that one is absolved from this requirement, but not the other. That is your theory, not mine. I am not interested in personalities, nor in their colour or religeon.

The law is the law, it is fundemental to the democratic process, fundemental to the Presidency, and that is fundemental to the legitimacy of many young British men giving their lives in Afghanistan.

‘Subjects’ are considerably different to ‘Citizens’ that is why Blackstone has no relevance here.

What does have relevance here is why you prefer to debate semantics rather than the simple question of why doesn’t the President produce the piece of paer which would avoid all doubt. Not just this President, but now that the issue has been raised by many thousands of people, by all future Presidents?

Justice has not only to be done, it must be seen to be done.

22
Alan
July 28, 2009 at 19:15

Anna Raccoon said: “Of course I have considered the implications! It matters not a jot who is caught by this confusion, on which side of the political divide, nor how many people may have transgressed it in the past.”

Habitual Smoker said: “You cannot claim that one is absolved from this requirement, but not the other.”

I don’t see that Anna has. There are just as many questions over McCain’s qualifications* to be President but most important to this discussion – it weren’t him that won!

* He appears to have been merely a US national until the 2008 legislation that granted US citizenship to people born to US parents in the Panama Canal Zone after 1904. This doesn’t make McCain natural born and the Senate Resolution is non-binding.

23
Habitual Smoker
July 28, 2009 at 19:47

Alan,

Thank you. McClain is no more or less a “natural born citizen” than Obama. Either they were both eligible for office, or they both were not. If Anna Raccoon is correct with here thesis that Obama was ineligible, then whatever the outcome of the 2008 Presidential race, the President would have no authority. How could the US democratic process have failed so spectacularly?

Anna Raccoon,

My apologies for assuming that you lend greater credibility to McClain’s legitimacy as presidential candidate. Do you now accept that both candidates were ineligible for office according to your thesis, and if so, then the entire US political system has a major question of legitimacy to respond to – not just Obama?

“Subjects” do indeed have different rights to “Citizens”. As do “Naturels” and “Citoyens”. I do not see any compelling evidence to suggest that Vattel’s “Naturel” has greater sway over the issue than “Subjects” as used by several others. What is it that compels you to believe this? And certainly nothing to suggest that the writers of the Constitution didn’t assume their own definition.

You are quite right. The law is the law. But I do not see how your interpretation of the words “natural born citizen” constitutes the law.

This is not discussing “symantics”, this is discussing what the actually the law is. You are arguing that the authorities which scutinise the candidates right to stand for office have got the law wrong by allowing Obama and McCain to participate. In effect, you are taking a contrary view to the political (and legal) establishment in the US. It is for you to demonstrate why your interpretation holds more weight than theirs.

Obama has already produced the documentation, and made it public even though there was no requirement for him to do so, that meets the law as interpreted by the establishment.

Habitual Smoker

24
Anna Raccoon
July 28, 2009 at 20:44

Habitual Smoker,

I accept that Major Cook’s legal challenge is an interesting one, and one that was worthy of bringing before a larger audience. I await the outcome with interest.

I find it interesting that the President would spend $1.5 million avoiding answering what seems to be a simple question – from which I infer that perhaps the answer is not as clear cut as you would wish.

You seem to wish to hav me argue and try the case single handed – if it was that straightforward then I am sure that Obama would not be going to such lengths to avoid it being heard.

You say I asm taking ‘a contrary view’ to the political and legal establishment’ – that is not so, I am publicising the fact that Major Cook’s legal team is taking a ‘contrary view’ to the political and legal establishment.

Perahps you are not a UK citizen and that is why you find the concept of ‘subjects’ being materially different to ‘citizens’ so difficult to understand. The US consitution was written specifically to ensure that its citizens were not also subjects, that is why I find it so difficult to take seriously your attempt to pray Blackstone in support of your arguement.

In a court of law, whether in the UK or the US, any judge will look to the citations regarding the definition available at the time the legislature was framed. If the founding fathers did have an alternative meaning in mind – then they should have glossed their writtings.

They didn’t.

Since the only other writtings you have been able to cite concern ‘subjects’, which most definitely couldn’t be what the founding fathers intended – we have come full circle back to Vatell again.

I would agree that it is the entire US politiical system that has a major question of leglitimacy to answer to – which is why it is such a shame that so many people have attempted to side track that uncomfortable fact.

Understandable though, we have a similar issue over the Attorney General’s advice to Blair over the legitimacy of the Iraq war.

25
Saul
July 28, 2009 at 20:10

“……the law as interpreted by the establishment. …..”

Love it!

26
Ch
July 28, 2009 at 20:23

I’m heaving a headache …

27
Habitual Smoker
July 28, 2009 at 20:27

Saul,

I know. The people who make and uphold the law actually knowing what the correct definition may be. Who’d have thought it!

What is the world coming to?

Habitual Smoker

PS. UK troops are deployed according to decisions made by HMG and Parliament. They are not deployed at the whim of a US President irrespective of his or her legitimacy. Whether the UK has got it right, is a completely different matter entirely.

28
Habitual Smoker
July 28, 2009 at 20:29

Ch

29
Habitual Smoker
July 28, 2009 at 21:11

Anna Raccoon,

I don’t understand. What simple question has he failed to answer? What are the lengths he is going to?

Your original article started with the report of Major Cook’s case and then progressed into your own analyis supporting it’s validity. You stated (not quoted somebody else), “The legal situation is quite simple

30
Anna Raccoon
July 29, 2009 at 11:26

Habitual Stoker,

“Thus, if you contend Vattel

31
Ch
July 28, 2009 at 22:23

I am still having a headache …

32
Ch
July 28, 2009 at 22:32

and it is so simple:

“[…] once a President was elected, his election was to last 4 years, even if errors were made as the decision to elect a President would be final and irrevocable. […]“

33
Saul
July 28, 2009 at 22:49

Simply simplistically simple.

34
Ch
July 28, 2009 at 22:55

Good night, Saul

35
Saul
July 28, 2009 at 23:08

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3geoXOdnJQ

36
muzzzaa
July 29, 2009 at 00:48

Damn, the Obama camp are playing the so called conservative base like the fools they are.
So will this coward who let his mates in Afghanistan down do the right thing and take a meander with the officer’s mess Colt ?
Or do you birthing mob see it as heroic for a so called soldier to wimp out on his duty ?
Oh, Anna, unlike the USA we who served in Her Majesties Forces did not pledge our loyalty to a politician.
We served the crown, not the hired help

37
Habitual Smoker
July 29, 2009 at 17:45

Anna Raccoon,

It has been my contention from the very beginning that the US Constitution is unclear as to what the phrase “natural born citizen” means and that neither I, nor you, nor anybody else can really claim to be the ‘guardian of truth’. I have not been trying to convince you that it means anything. I have simply tried to point out that your determination to convince others of one particular interpretation was misplaced, since it is clear that alternatives exist. It seems I have succeeded.

For the record, I suspect that the writers of the Constitutaion followed neither Vattel nor Blackstone and used the phrase to mean something entirely of their own understanding. I suspect that they intended it to mean only those born on US soil and that gradually that has been widened – by common consent – to also mean offspring of US citizens irrespective of their birth location. This is the impression I get from the historical data flowing for the varions documents and problems that have occured over the past 200 years.

I agree that it would be wise for the US constitutional system to sort this out once and for all and present an unequivocable and unarguable definition as to the necessary requirements to be a “natural born citizen”.

I have no idea how Obama producing his “long form” birth certificate will make a blind bit of difference. Does it have a definitive definition of “natural born citizen” written on it?

The problem is in the definition of the requirement not what is written on his birth certificate.

Habitual Smoker

• There are more important things than the legitimacy of the Presidency! 
• Barry For President. Of Kenya, muthafucka. « Al Jahom’s Final Word