This entry was posted on July 15, 2009 at 6:47 am and is filed under Free For All . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I see CNN is stating that it is #1 in Cable News. Yet every time we see ratings posted, Fox has all of the top programs, and CNN is nowhere near them in any category, from what I can tell.
Anyone know what they’re talking about? Could they be #1 among a certain breed of dogs, or maybe #1 among stations with some offices in Atlanta, or #1 when there’s a full moon?
I have never seen any measure by which they could make that claim.
Ok, I’m not one of those Obama Birthers, and hate all these stupid conspiracy theories. This one just poured a whole barrel of gasoline onto the fire. The goverment just caved on the soldier refusing to go to Afghanistan because he said Obama wasn’t a legitimate Commander in Chief, via WorldNetDaily.
“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His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.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!”
She continued, “They just said, ‘Order revoked.’ No explanation. No reasons – just revoked.”
A hearing on the questions raised by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, an engineer who told WND he wants to serve his country in Afghanistan, was scheduled for July 16 at 9:30 a.m. “
Wow. Maybe the Army considered the wackjob unsafe on the battlefield, but it doesn’t look good. What are they going to do when 50 more soldiers speak up?
Hasn’t 0bama spent millions in attorney’s fees to fight having to produce any such birth certificate? What’s up with that?
If 0bama was NOT born in the U.S., I’m sure Congress would just change the laws to make that not a requirement. So I’m not of the group that is advocating that he produce such a document. But I guess if I was going to be deployed, I’d sure hope that it my orders were given by a guy who was at least elected legitimately.
unsafe on the battlefield
That was my first thought. Second thought, maybe that was the soldier’s idea to begin with. But wouldn’t there be consequences?
This Cook appears to be a real nutcase – he VOLUNTEERED for active duty in May (when, apparently, Obama WAS a citizen) and had the option to rescind his volunteering up until the day he is scheduled to deploy. Instead, he chooses to make a sideshow of himself.
“A hearing to discuss Cook’s requests is scheduled to take place in federal court here Thursday at 9:30 a.m. ”
Prediction – Army will try to discharge nutbag. Nutbag will sue to prevent discharge. Army will try to deploy nutbag. Nutbag will sue to prevent deployment.
I”m also glad our President takes so much pride in being a Chicago White Sox fan. He sounded so genuine & knowledgable about baseball during his interview with Bob Costas last night….
……at least until he called Comiskey Park, where the White Sox play, which has been named Comiskey Park for almost a century…. but our genius President, who is 100 times smarter than any Republican, especially George Bush, called Comiskey Park “COMINSKEY FIELD”.
Brilliant.
Now surely Keith Olbermann, being a HUGE baseball fan, will rip him for this tonight, right?
“What are they going to do when 50 more soldiers speak up?”
An excellent question, Joe. I was listening to Lou Dobbs on my way to work today, and he had Ms. Taitz on for an interview. And even Lou, who was initially against the whole birth-certificate thing seemed surprised by what she had to say. But to answer you question specifically, she said that she’s got over 100 people who are joining in on the lawsuit… high-ranking military members some of them (at least, according to her).
And while I join BR in saying the conspiracy was pretty goofy… she did have some interesting things to say (through her rather thick accent). Things like the certificate presented online is bogus… and is lacking things like a hospital, signatures from the doctors, and a valid ID number. She also said that Hawaii has laws on the book that allow the state to issue a birth certificate post-birth, just as long as one “witness” (ie: a parent) says the person was born in Hawaii… which, as she points out, is pretty flimsy.
I’ve been pretty hesitant on this “issue,” but she did say some things that piqued my curiosity.
unclearthur Says:
July 15, 2009 at 10:17 am
oh please – it’s irrelevant WHERE the child of a US citizen was born. Just ask John McCain – he was born in Panama.
And here I thought you were a stickler for the “rule of law.” Oh, that’s right… we’re talking about a Democrat… now if it were Cheney on the other hand, well that would be a different story…
And here I thought you were a stickler for the “rule of law.”
Excuse me? where did you get that I wasn’t for ‘the rule of law’? I’m simply saying what the law IS. A natural-born US citizen’s child is a US citizen, even if that child were born on Mars.
“Yes, but the Constitution requires the President to be born in the United States. Unless you want to change that… that’s presently the law, is it not?”
Actually, it is not:
Article 2, Section 1: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President”.
It is my understanding that the courts have not expressly defined the term “natural-born citizen”, although they may have inexpressly defined it by not hearing cases. One definition is that it merely means the opposite of “naturalised”, or anyone who did not become a citizen through the immigration process. The second meaning of “anyone born on U.S. soil” could be valid but would require an express ruling by federal courts in order to make it valid. If the latter is the correct definition, then the Panama Canal zone would need to be defined as “US soil” for him to have been eligible.
I don’t know diddly squat, of course, but my guess is that the soldier’s deployment orders were rescinded by the the Sec Def, himself, and done so for political reasons.
The White House has a whole lot on its plate and probably doesn’t want the political distraction about the president’s birth place going through the courts right now – and that is entirely separate from whether or not they think the lawsuit might be problematic for the president on legal grounds.
There’s also nothing inherently wrong with the White House making politically-motivated decisions, as that’s an entirely legitimate part of the process.
Yes it is, and I’m beginning to think Obama may have a problem here. I was born in Maine. How do I know that? My parents told me, and I have a birth certificate that says so. My father is Canadian and wouldn’t you know it, Canada is very near Maine. What if you ran for President, got the job, then found out your origin story wasn’t quite what you were led to believe?
The Naturalization Act of 1790: “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
This law was superseded by the Naturalization act of of 1795 with the definition of “natural born” omitted.
Our volunteer, Cook, worked for the Dept. of Defense. Not anymore!
heh, he really screwed the pooch on this one. he worked for a CONTRACTOR for the DoD. And DoD decided they didn’t want him working on their contract any more.
Watch – now he’ll try to sue for wrongful termination. Doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
“What if you ran for President, got the job, then found out your origin story wasn’t quite what you were led to believe?”
Well, the birth certificate is supposed to clear that up… that’s why there are certain things like three signatures, an ID number, and other such records on the form. From what this woman was saying, the certificate online doesn’t have those standard things… which makes it a little fishy.
Either way, that seems like the type of thing that would have been checked out prior to running. If somehow this does turn out to be more than a loony conspiracy theory, it won’t be the place of birth that’s the problem… it will be the cover-up.
Al Says:
July 15, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Interesting quote Al… but was Obama’s father ever an American citizen? If not, this would seemingly cancel him out, if he wasn’t born overseas.
“Watch – now he’ll try to sue for wrongful termination. Doesn’t have a leg to stand on.”
Why doesn’t he? Seems like retribution to me… you can’t fire someone for filing a lawsuit. On what grounds, I wonder, was he terminated.
Seems like retribution to me… you can’t fire someone for filing a lawsuit. On what grounds, I wonder, was he terminated.
Are you kidding? think about what this guy did. He VOLUNTEERED for a one-year deployment back in May that he had no intention of showing up for. This leads his employer to scramble around backfilling his position. Meanwhile at the Pentagon, personnel people are looking for a billet for him, grateful that they don’t have to send someone fresh from Iraq into the field again. So they send him notice of his deployment date and billet, and he files a lawsuit? Because he was Individual Ready Reserve (as opposed to in a reserve unit) and because he volunteered for the billet in the first place, HE DIDN’T HAVE TO DEPLOY. He could have withdrawn his volunteering UP TO THE DATE OF DEPLOYMENT. But he didn’t do that, because that’s not why he volunteered – he volunteered specifically so that he could file a lawsuit, and simply backing out of the deployment wouldn’t satisfy that.
The kind of job he was in sounds like an IT support job; that is, the government contracts with a private firm for people to run the helpdesk, maintain the network, etc. The contractors work in government spaces, with desks, phones, a network account, a building badge, and so on. Companies that win these contracts (and I work for such a firm) staff up for them – that is, the people they hire are hired specifically for those jobs. One of the conditions of your employment is that you satisfy the client.
If the client doesn’t want you on the contract any more, a generous employer might leave you hanging around eating up overhead while they tried to place you somewhere else on another contract, particularly if you were just ‘a bad fit’ for that position but were otherwise well-qualified. But this guy? NO ONE is going to want him in their spaces anywhere NEAR their IT infrastructure. He is now radioactive.
I don’t blame his company for letting him go – he embarrassed the company with their biggest (perhaps their only) customer. And I doubt any other IT service provider will touch him with a ten foot pole. He’d better be good looking and able to read a teleprompter because Fox News may be his only option at this point. Not kidding when I said he screwed the pooch.
imnotblue – The citizen status of Obama’s father is irrelevant. It is a point of fact that Obama’s father was not born in the United States. What is at issue is whether or not President Obama was born in Hawaii – if he was then he is a US citizen regardless of the status of his parents.
Although I think this is conspiracy theory nonsense, I do think the President should have provided the Congress with a copy of his original birth certificate if he hasn’t already done so and put this to bed. It is a Constitutional issue.
President Obama’s mother was American-born so he is automatically an American citizen regardless of where he was born. But that’s not the issue, it is whether or not he meets the constitutional requirement of being a natural born American if he was, in fact, born on foreign soil instead of in Hawaii as claimed.
It is in reference to the now defunct 1790 statute where the status of his father could potentially come into play.
He VOLUNTEERED for a one-year deployment back in May that he had no intention of showing up for.
Speculation?
…he volunteered specifically so that he could file a lawsuit, and simply backing out of the deployment wouldn’t satisfy that.
And what part of that, dishonest as it might be, is illegal?
NO ONE is going to want him in their spaces anywhere NEAR their IT infrastructure. He is now radioactive.
Why is he “radioactive?” You cannot simply excuse or fire him as a result of him filing a lawsuit, no more than you could fire someone for being a “whistleblower.”
What you’re saying, is that because he spoke out, and said something the government didn’t like, it is acceptable for him to get blacklisted. What if, instead of this instance, he was a she… and publically refused to work for a certain high-ranking official because of his “sexual advances?” Would you think it acceptable to blacklist her because she embarrassed the client, and perhaps the company? That’s retribution… and it’s against the law.
The contractor working for the DOD has every right to dismiss Cook for anything they want, as long as it’s not discriminatory. I’m guessing claiming you won’t fight for your Commander-in-Chief may not sit well with many DOD contractors. Call it a hunch.
February 1, 2009: Major Cook signs on as a “military Plaintiff” with Orly Taitz, which he himself brags about on the Free Republic message board.
May 8, 2009: Major Cook volunteers for deployment to Afghanistan
July 10, 2009: Major Cook files a lawsuit asking to get out of his deployment because Obama is not a “natural born citizen”
Do the math. It’s not hard.
And what part of that, dishonest as it might be, is illegal?
Where did I say ‘illegal’? And I love the way anything not illegal is now apparently okay with you. Real conservative morality in action.
What you’re saying, is that because he spoke out, and said something the government didn’t like, it is acceptable for him to get blacklisted.
I’m saying his employer had every right to fire him. Check your own employer’s ‘employee handbook’ or what have you – I bet there’s something in there that says ‘do nothing to bring discredit to our company’.
Scamming the military with a phony deployment bid dishonors the service and put a LOT of people to unnecessary labor, and probably resulted in some poor regular army type having to deploy to Afghanistan with a week or two’s notice.
And anyone who shows the kind of ‘judgment’ this bozo has shown should not be allowed to have anything to do with critical IT infrastructure, PARTICULARLY DoD IT infrastructure.
“The contractor working for the DOD has every right to dismiss Cook for anything they want, as long as it’s not discriminatory.”
You may be correct. But, I’m sure Cook’s lawyers will be able to argue it WAS discriminatory… at put up a good fight. It will come down to a court battle and interpretation of the contract and law.
“Is it?”
Interesting! That’s why I put the question-mark after “Speculation,” I wasn’t sure if there was any evidence to the contrary. It does seem (from what you posted) that he had intentions and a plan. The plot thickens…
And I love the way anything not illegal is now apparently okay with you. Real conservative morality in action.
Well, being that we’re talking about whether or not this guy will be able to sue to keep his job, I think the “legal” standard is applicable. Additionally, you implication that it’s “wrong,” may be correct… but just because it’s “wrong,” doesn’t mean it’s not also right.
I’m starting to wonder if you’re really a Liberal… I mean, you know so much about what Conservatives think, and their plans, and what they really mean, you might have to be one. Oh well… as for the morality… it’s a real shame that Liberals attack Conservatives for not living up to their (alleged) ‘moral code,’ but have no problem when one of their own does the same. I guess Liberals just expect less from their own… but why they’re so proud of that, I don’t understand.
I bet there’s something in there that says ‘do nothing to bring discredit to our company’.
Eh… not sure there’s that. There is, however, a clause that says they can fire me at anytime for any reason… but that really won’t get in the way of a discrimination lawsuit.
Look… I’m not saying the guy is a saint, or that what he did was right. However, the reaction is proved is interesting, and (once again) a somewhat simple issue, may bring a bigger spotlight on the problem, than on the action itself. This Taitz woman said some interesting things, and while I’m not ready to call myself a ‘believer,’ it did pique my curiosity more than before.
I’m reminded of the case of Michael Newdow (not sure if that’s how it’s spelled, and it’s too hot out to check), who brought a lawsuit against the California school system for “forcing” the children to say the “Pledge of Allegiance.” He is a staunch atheist, and said making his daughter say, “Under God” in school was unconstitutional. But, as the case went through the courts, it was determined that Newdow (who was divorced, and without custody) wasn’t really looking out for his daughter, he was simply using it as a means to sue the state… something he had previously tried to do, but couldn’t because he wasn’t directly involved with the school system.
This case seems to bear some similarity to that. Cook may be using his job and volunteerism as a method to make a statement which would otherwise be ignored. Although… the big difference appears to be that Cook is not alone, and if Ms. Taitz has actually added hundreds of other military personal to her lawsuit, I doubt they’re all as planned out as Mr. Cook.
This Taitz woman said some interesting things, and while I’m not ready to call myself a ‘believer,’ it did pique my curiosity more than before.
Careful.
When I was in high school, I got sucked into the whole Erich von Daniken ‘Ancient Astronauts’ thing. Damn, he made it sound not only plausible, but cut and dried! Then I went to college and learned some critical thinking.
But I well remember the feeling of Knowing Something Other People Don’t, and the frustration of thinking ‘if people would just Open Their Eyes to the evidence!’ and how special and informed it makes you feel.
Soon you’re ignoring evidence to the contrary and seeking out only evidence that supports your cherished theory and before you know it, it’s suddenly CLEAR to you that Dick Cheney planted mines in the walls of the WTC towers and the moon landing was filmed on a sound stage and FEMA is building a system of concentration camps to imprison Americans and the ancient Mayans were really time travelers from the far future that got trapped in the past. Well, that last one is true but you know what I mean.
That feeling of being one of a very few who can See the Truth Plainly while all around you are blind sheep… it’s a dangerous drug.
BTW, Imnot – I have to give you props for knowing the correct spelling of “piqued”. Seems like the rest of the world thinks it’s “peaked” now. That bugs me more than it should.
Then I went to college and learned some critical thinking.
I took that course too… it was interesting, until I “critically realized” that it was my teacher’s bias which was coloring many of his lectures. Then I was less impressed… although, still an interesting class.
But I well remember the feeling of Knowing Something Other People Don’t…
Yes, I’ve noticed you’re intimately acquainted with that feeling.
That feeling of being one of a very few who can See the Truth Plainly while all around you are blind sheep… it’s a dangerous drug.
And if I said anything more than, “What this woman had to say was interesting… I’d like to seem more evidence,” you might be onto something. But as “critical thinking” taught me… be willing to listen to all stories, see all evidence, and then make a decision. So I think the question is, are you willing to consider this woman’s evidence… or are you “ignoring evidence to the contrary and seeking out only evidence that supports your cherished theory”?
BTW, Imnot – I have to give you props…
It’s quite ironic, really… spelling is not my strong suit. In fact, if you saw what I typed before spell check, you’d question my literacy (well, not really… but almost). Don’t know why I know the correct spelling of “piqued,” but it’s in there somewhere… now if only the rest of my vocabulary was, I’d be set!
July 15, 2009 at 8:06 am
So MSNBC was founded 13 years ago today…
July 15, 2009 at 9:10 am
I see CNN is stating that it is #1 in Cable News. Yet every time we see ratings posted, Fox has all of the top programs, and CNN is nowhere near them in any category, from what I can tell.
Anyone know what they’re talking about? Could they be #1 among a certain breed of dogs, or maybe #1 among stations with some offices in Atlanta, or #1 when there’s a full moon?
I have never seen any measure by which they could make that claim.
July 15, 2009 at 9:11 am
And so what is up with O’Reilly and Newsweek? I tuned in late and don’t know what happened yesterday.
July 15, 2009 at 9:22 am
No. 1 on Twitter?
July 15, 2009 at 9:32 am
#1 among senior citizens who wear bow-ties & suspenders?
July 15, 2009 at 9:35 am
Ok, I’m not one of those Obama Birthers, and hate all these stupid conspiracy theories. This one just poured a whole barrel of gasoline onto the fire. The goverment just caved on the soldier refusing to go to Afghanistan because he said Obama wasn’t a legitimate Commander in Chief, via WorldNetDaily.
“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!”
She continued, “They just said, ‘Order revoked.’ No explanation. No reasons – just revoked.”
A hearing on the questions raised by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, an engineer who told WND he wants to serve his country in Afghanistan, was scheduled for July 16 at 9:30 a.m. “
July 15, 2009 at 9:51 am
Wow. Maybe the Army considered the wackjob unsafe on the battlefield, but it doesn’t look good. What are they going to do when 50 more soldiers speak up?
July 15, 2009 at 9:57 am
Hasn’t 0bama spent millions in attorney’s fees to fight having to produce any such birth certificate? What’s up with that?
If 0bama was NOT born in the U.S., I’m sure Congress would just change the laws to make that not a requirement. So I’m not of the group that is advocating that he produce such a document. But I guess if I was going to be deployed, I’d sure hope that it my orders were given by a guy who was at least elected legitimately.
July 15, 2009 at 10:14 am
unsafe on the battlefield
That was my first thought. Second thought, maybe that was the soldier’s idea to begin with. But wouldn’t there be consequences?
July 15, 2009 at 10:17 am
If 0bama was NOT born in the U.S., I’m sure Congress would just change the laws to make that not a requirement.
oh please – it’s irrelevant WHERE the child of a US citizen was born. Just ask John McCain – he was born in Panama.
July 15, 2009 at 10:21 am
…maybe that was the soldier’s idea to begin with.
He was gonna go with dressing in women’s clothes, then realized it didn’t work for Klinger.
July 15, 2009 at 10:21 am
This Cook appears to be a real nutcase – he VOLUNTEERED for active duty in May (when, apparently, Obama WAS a citizen) and had the option to rescind his volunteering up until the day he is scheduled to deploy. Instead, he chooses to make a sideshow of himself.
“A hearing to discuss Cook’s requests is scheduled to take place in federal court here Thursday at 9:30 a.m. ”
Dishonorable charge or court martial?
July 15, 2009 at 10:51 am
Prediction – Army will try to discharge nutbag. Nutbag will sue to prevent discharge. Army will try to deploy nutbag. Nutbag will sue to prevent deployment.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
July 15, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Glad to see Neil Cavuto back on the air. Like him or loathe him, he is a model to follow in his battle with MS.
July 15, 2009 at 12:31 pm
I’m glad he’s back. I was worried.
I”m also glad our President takes so much pride in being a Chicago White Sox fan. He sounded so genuine & knowledgable about baseball during his interview with Bob Costas last night….
……at least until he called Comiskey Park, where the White Sox play, which has been named Comiskey Park for almost a century…. but our genius President, who is 100 times smarter than any Republican, especially George Bush, called Comiskey Park “COMINSKEY FIELD”.
Brilliant.
Now surely Keith Olbermann, being a HUGE baseball fan, will rip him for this tonight, right?
July 15, 2009 at 12:36 pm
“What are they going to do when 50 more soldiers speak up?”
An excellent question, Joe. I was listening to Lou Dobbs on my way to work today, and he had Ms. Taitz on for an interview. And even Lou, who was initially against the whole birth-certificate thing seemed surprised by what she had to say. But to answer you question specifically, she said that she’s got over 100 people who are joining in on the lawsuit… high-ranking military members some of them (at least, according to her).
And while I join BR in saying the conspiracy was pretty goofy… she did have some interesting things to say (through her rather thick accent). Things like the certificate presented online is bogus… and is lacking things like a hospital, signatures from the doctors, and a valid ID number. She also said that Hawaii has laws on the book that allow the state to issue a birth certificate post-birth, just as long as one “witness” (ie: a parent) says the person was born in Hawaii… which, as she points out, is pretty flimsy.
I’ve been pretty hesitant on this “issue,” but she did say some things that piqued my curiosity.
unclearthur Says:
July 15, 2009 at 10:17 am
oh please – it’s irrelevant WHERE the child of a US citizen was born. Just ask John McCain – he was born in Panama.
And here I thought you were a stickler for the “rule of law.” Oh, that’s right… we’re talking about a Democrat… now if it were Cheney on the other hand, well that would be a different story…
July 15, 2009 at 12:39 pm
And here I thought you were a stickler for the “rule of law.”
Excuse me? where did you get that I wasn’t for ‘the rule of law’? I’m simply saying what the law IS. A natural-born US citizen’s child is a US citizen, even if that child were born on Mars.
July 15, 2009 at 12:43 pm
A natural-born US citizen’s child is a US citizen, even if that child were born on Mars.
Yes, but the Constitution requires the President to be born in the United States. Unless you want to change that… that’s presently the law, is it not?
July 15, 2009 at 1:24 pm
“Yes, but the Constitution requires the President to be born in the United States. Unless you want to change that… that’s presently the law, is it not?”
Actually, it is not:
Article 2, Section 1: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President”.
It is my understanding that the courts have not expressly defined the term “natural-born citizen”, although they may have inexpressly defined it by not hearing cases. One definition is that it merely means the opposite of “naturalised”, or anyone who did not become a citizen through the immigration process. The second meaning of “anyone born on U.S. soil” could be valid but would require an express ruling by federal courts in order to make it valid. If the latter is the correct definition, then the Panama Canal zone would need to be defined as “US soil” for him to have been eligible.
July 15, 2009 at 1:34 pm
House Democrats Universal Healthcare plan…
http://docs.house.gov/gopleader/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf
Get ready for higher taxes, poor quality or denied care, long waits and rationed care!
July 15, 2009 at 1:35 pm
I don’t know diddly squat, of course, but my guess is that the soldier’s deployment orders were rescinded by the the Sec Def, himself, and done so for political reasons.
The White House has a whole lot on its plate and probably doesn’t want the political distraction about the president’s birth place going through the courts right now – and that is entirely separate from whether or not they think the lawsuit might be problematic for the president on legal grounds.
There’s also nothing inherently wrong with the White House making politically-motivated decisions, as that’s an entirely legitimate part of the process.
July 15, 2009 at 1:37 pm
that’s presently the law, is it not?
Yes it is, and I’m beginning to think Obama may have a problem here. I was born in Maine. How do I know that? My parents told me, and I have a birth certificate that says so. My father is Canadian and wouldn’t you know it, Canada is very near Maine. What if you ran for President, got the job, then found out your origin story wasn’t quite what you were led to believe?
July 15, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Well dagnabbit, joe may have a point.
The Naturalization Act of 1790: “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
This law was superseded by the Naturalization act of of 1795 with the definition of “natural born” omitted.
July 15, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Can someone please get Senatore Dodd (otherwise known as Mr. Fannie & Mr. Freddie) off of my TV….Why isn’t he living in his Iowa or Ireland home?
July 15, 2009 at 4:10 pm
chips, we don’t need that gasbag here, or to ruin beautiful Ireland.
I hear “Cominskey Field” is beautiful this time of year tho. Maybe we could send Dodd there.
July 15, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Our volunteer, Cook, worked for the Dept. of Defense. Not anymore!
July 15, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Our volunteer, Cook, worked for the Dept. of Defense. Not anymore!
heh, he really screwed the pooch on this one. he worked for a CONTRACTOR for the DoD. And DoD decided they didn’t want him working on their contract any more.
Watch – now he’ll try to sue for wrongful termination. Doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
July 15, 2009 at 6:40 pm
“What if you ran for President, got the job, then found out your origin story wasn’t quite what you were led to believe?”
Well, the birth certificate is supposed to clear that up… that’s why there are certain things like three signatures, an ID number, and other such records on the form. From what this woman was saying, the certificate online doesn’t have those standard things… which makes it a little fishy.
Either way, that seems like the type of thing that would have been checked out prior to running. If somehow this does turn out to be more than a loony conspiracy theory, it won’t be the place of birth that’s the problem… it will be the cover-up.
Al Says:
July 15, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Interesting quote Al… but was Obama’s father ever an American citizen? If not, this would seemingly cancel him out, if he wasn’t born overseas.
“Watch – now he’ll try to sue for wrongful termination. Doesn’t have a leg to stand on.”
Why doesn’t he? Seems like retribution to me… you can’t fire someone for filing a lawsuit. On what grounds, I wonder, was he terminated.
July 15, 2009 at 7:08 pm
…it will be the cover-up.
It’s ALWAYS the cover up.
July 15, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Seems like retribution to me… you can’t fire someone for filing a lawsuit. On what grounds, I wonder, was he terminated.
Are you kidding? think about what this guy did. He VOLUNTEERED for a one-year deployment back in May that he had no intention of showing up for. This leads his employer to scramble around backfilling his position. Meanwhile at the Pentagon, personnel people are looking for a billet for him, grateful that they don’t have to send someone fresh from Iraq into the field again. So they send him notice of his deployment date and billet, and he files a lawsuit? Because he was Individual Ready Reserve (as opposed to in a reserve unit) and because he volunteered for the billet in the first place, HE DIDN’T HAVE TO DEPLOY. He could have withdrawn his volunteering UP TO THE DATE OF DEPLOYMENT. But he didn’t do that, because that’s not why he volunteered – he volunteered specifically so that he could file a lawsuit, and simply backing out of the deployment wouldn’t satisfy that.
The kind of job he was in sounds like an IT support job; that is, the government contracts with a private firm for people to run the helpdesk, maintain the network, etc. The contractors work in government spaces, with desks, phones, a network account, a building badge, and so on. Companies that win these contracts (and I work for such a firm) staff up for them – that is, the people they hire are hired specifically for those jobs. One of the conditions of your employment is that you satisfy the client.
If the client doesn’t want you on the contract any more, a generous employer might leave you hanging around eating up overhead while they tried to place you somewhere else on another contract, particularly if you were just ‘a bad fit’ for that position but were otherwise well-qualified. But this guy? NO ONE is going to want him in their spaces anywhere NEAR their IT infrastructure. He is now radioactive.
I don’t blame his company for letting him go – he embarrassed the company with their biggest (perhaps their only) customer. And I doubt any other IT service provider will touch him with a ten foot pole. He’d better be good looking and able to read a teleprompter because Fox News may be his only option at this point. Not kidding when I said he screwed the pooch.
July 15, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Hey Chip, Charles Martin Smith sighting! On Leverage on TNT.
July 16, 2009 at 12:55 am
imnotblue – The citizen status of Obama’s father is irrelevant. It is a point of fact that Obama’s father was not born in the United States. What is at issue is whether or not President Obama was born in Hawaii – if he was then he is a US citizen regardless of the status of his parents.
Although I think this is conspiracy theory nonsense, I do think the President should have provided the Congress with a copy of his original birth certificate if he hasn’t already done so and put this to bed. It is a Constitutional issue.
July 16, 2009 at 6:07 am
President Obama’s mother was American-born so he is automatically an American citizen regardless of where he was born. But that’s not the issue, it is whether or not he meets the constitutional requirement of being a natural born American if he was, in fact, born on foreign soil instead of in Hawaii as claimed.
It is in reference to the now defunct 1790 statute where the status of his father could potentially come into play.
July 16, 2009 at 12:36 pm
He VOLUNTEERED for a one-year deployment back in May that he had no intention of showing up for.
Speculation?
…he volunteered specifically so that he could file a lawsuit, and simply backing out of the deployment wouldn’t satisfy that.
And what part of that, dishonest as it might be, is illegal?
NO ONE is going to want him in their spaces anywhere NEAR their IT infrastructure. He is now radioactive.
Why is he “radioactive?” You cannot simply excuse or fire him as a result of him filing a lawsuit, no more than you could fire someone for being a “whistleblower.”
What you’re saying, is that because he spoke out, and said something the government didn’t like, it is acceptable for him to get blacklisted. What if, instead of this instance, he was a she… and publically refused to work for a certain high-ranking official because of his “sexual advances?” Would you think it acceptable to blacklist her because she embarrassed the client, and perhaps the company? That’s retribution… and it’s against the law.
July 16, 2009 at 1:17 pm
The contractor working for the DOD has every right to dismiss Cook for anything they want, as long as it’s not discriminatory. I’m guessing claiming you won’t fight for your Commander-in-Chief may not sit well with many DOD contractors. Call it a hunch.
July 16, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Speculation?
Is it?
Do the math. It’s not hard.
And what part of that, dishonest as it might be, is illegal?
Where did I say ‘illegal’? And I love the way anything not illegal is now apparently okay with you. Real conservative morality in action.
What you’re saying, is that because he spoke out, and said something the government didn’t like, it is acceptable for him to get blacklisted.
I’m saying his employer had every right to fire him. Check your own employer’s ‘employee handbook’ or what have you – I bet there’s something in there that says ‘do nothing to bring discredit to our company’.
Scamming the military with a phony deployment bid dishonors the service and put a LOT of people to unnecessary labor, and probably resulted in some poor regular army type having to deploy to Afghanistan with a week or two’s notice.
And anyone who shows the kind of ‘judgment’ this bozo has shown should not be allowed to have anything to do with critical IT infrastructure, PARTICULARLY DoD IT infrastructure.
July 16, 2009 at 8:01 pm
“The contractor working for the DOD has every right to dismiss Cook for anything they want, as long as it’s not discriminatory.”
You may be correct. But, I’m sure Cook’s lawyers will be able to argue it WAS discriminatory… at put up a good fight. It will come down to a court battle and interpretation of the contract and law.
“Is it?”
Interesting! That’s why I put the question-mark after “Speculation,” I wasn’t sure if there was any evidence to the contrary. It does seem (from what you posted) that he had intentions and a plan. The plot thickens…
And I love the way anything not illegal is now apparently okay with you. Real conservative morality in action.
Well, being that we’re talking about whether or not this guy will be able to sue to keep his job, I think the “legal” standard is applicable. Additionally, you implication that it’s “wrong,” may be correct… but just because it’s “wrong,” doesn’t mean it’s not also right.
I’m starting to wonder if you’re really a Liberal… I mean, you know so much about what Conservatives think, and their plans, and what they really mean, you might have to be one. Oh well… as for the morality… it’s a real shame that Liberals attack Conservatives for not living up to their (alleged) ‘moral code,’ but have no problem when one of their own does the same. I guess Liberals just expect less from their own… but why they’re so proud of that, I don’t understand.
I bet there’s something in there that says ‘do nothing to bring discredit to our company’.
Eh… not sure there’s that. There is, however, a clause that says they can fire me at anytime for any reason… but that really won’t get in the way of a discrimination lawsuit.
Look… I’m not saying the guy is a saint, or that what he did was right. However, the reaction is proved is interesting, and (once again) a somewhat simple issue, may bring a bigger spotlight on the problem, than on the action itself. This Taitz woman said some interesting things, and while I’m not ready to call myself a ‘believer,’ it did pique my curiosity more than before.
I’m reminded of the case of Michael Newdow (not sure if that’s how it’s spelled, and it’s too hot out to check), who brought a lawsuit against the California school system for “forcing” the children to say the “Pledge of Allegiance.” He is a staunch atheist, and said making his daughter say, “Under God” in school was unconstitutional. But, as the case went through the courts, it was determined that Newdow (who was divorced, and without custody) wasn’t really looking out for his daughter, he was simply using it as a means to sue the state… something he had previously tried to do, but couldn’t because he wasn’t directly involved with the school system.
This case seems to bear some similarity to that. Cook may be using his job and volunteerism as a method to make a statement which would otherwise be ignored. Although… the big difference appears to be that Cook is not alone, and if Ms. Taitz has actually added hundreds of other military personal to her lawsuit, I doubt they’re all as planned out as Mr. Cook.
July 17, 2009 at 12:31 am
This Taitz woman said some interesting things, and while I’m not ready to call myself a ‘believer,’ it did pique my curiosity more than before.
Careful.
When I was in high school, I got sucked into the whole Erich von Daniken ‘Ancient Astronauts’ thing. Damn, he made it sound not only plausible, but cut and dried! Then I went to college and learned some critical thinking.
But I well remember the feeling of Knowing Something Other People Don’t, and the frustration of thinking ‘if people would just Open Their Eyes to the evidence!’ and how special and informed it makes you feel.
Soon you’re ignoring evidence to the contrary and seeking out only evidence that supports your cherished theory and before you know it, it’s suddenly CLEAR to you that Dick Cheney planted mines in the walls of the WTC towers and the moon landing was filmed on a sound stage and FEMA is building a system of concentration camps to imprison Americans and the ancient Mayans were really time travelers from the far future that got trapped in the past. Well, that last one is true but you know what I mean.
That feeling of being one of a very few who can See the Truth Plainly while all around you are blind sheep… it’s a dangerous drug.
July 17, 2009 at 1:24 pm
BTW, Imnot – I have to give you props for knowing the correct spelling of “piqued”. Seems like the rest of the world thinks it’s “peaked” now. That bugs me more than it should.
July 17, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Then I went to college and learned some critical thinking.
I took that course too… it was interesting, until I “critically realized” that it was my teacher’s bias which was coloring many of his lectures. Then I was less impressed… although, still an interesting class.
But I well remember the feeling of Knowing Something Other People Don’t…
Yes, I’ve noticed you’re intimately acquainted with that feeling.
That feeling of being one of a very few who can See the Truth Plainly while all around you are blind sheep… it’s a dangerous drug.
And if I said anything more than, “What this woman had to say was interesting… I’d like to seem more evidence,” you might be onto something. But as “critical thinking” taught me… be willing to listen to all stories, see all evidence, and then make a decision. So I think the question is, are you willing to consider this woman’s evidence… or are you “ignoring evidence to the contrary and seeking out only evidence that supports your cherished theory”?
BTW, Imnot – I have to give you props…
It’s quite ironic, really… spelling is not my strong suit. In fact, if you saw what I typed before spell check, you’d question my literacy (well, not really… but almost). Don’t know why I know the correct spelling of “piqued,” but it’s in there somewhere… now if only the rest of my vocabulary was, I’d be set!