What were the pro's & con's in doing this?

[Mike Furley]

Some soldier refused to accept his orders for deployment and did so by filing suit in court arguing that Barack Obama never has produced the long version of his birth certificate - the one that shows the hospital of birth, attending physician, vital statistics, etc. - and that because Obama hadn't the soldier could not in good conscience follow any order from Obama because the soldier wasn't certain those orders would be legitimate if Obama were not a natural born citizen.

A number of lawsuits were previously filed during the campaign season seeking Obama to produce his long version of his birth certificate, and almost every single one was dismissed - usually for lack of standing or jurisdiction reasons. A few remain pending on appeal.

I assumed this case would be similarly dismissed. According to an online article from a right wing website that has been pushing the Obama birth certificate issue since the beginning, the orders for deployment by the soldier have been revoked - thus killing the lawsuit.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009

I don't know for certain, but for my memory it seems, whenever a soldier has refused deployment for partisan, political, grandstanding issues, the soldier was brought up on charges. This is the first I've seen where the first reaction was to simply revoke the orders.

President Obama, as commander in chief, can act in whatever manner he sees fit, and therefore shouldn't be bound to past precedent in my opinion. That being said, I find this course of action to be curious. It would seem by revoking the orders to deploy, any soldier who didn't want to deploy could simply similarly follow suit seeking Obama to finally present his long version of his birth certificate.

What are the pro's & con's in revoking the orders to deploy (if that is truly what happened)?

The pro's it would seem would be:

1.) Kill the lawsuit and the need to spend time & money arguing and responding to it.

2.) It would remove the soldier in question from his unit that does deploy thus removing a person who would undoubtedly cause a breakdown in the chain of command for those under him.

The con's it would seem would be:

1.) Further perpetuate the feeling that Obama has something to hide regarding the long version of his birth certificate - it doesn't exist because he wasn't born in the USA, it was lost, it lists information he doesn't want public such as religion, it lists a different father (?).

2.) It encourages other service personell to file similar suits in thinking this is a way to avoid deployment.

Are there other pro's and con's I'm missing? Does anyone else find this decision curious?

Lastly, the soldier in question was recently given the number one spot on Keith Olberman's worst people in America list, and Olbermann described him as a coward, unfit to wear the uniform. Does anyone recall Olbermann being equally righteous over Ehren Watada's decision to refuse deployment to Iraq when Bush was president?

[amazinblue]

According to an online article from a right wing website that has been pushing the Obama birth certificate issue since the beginning, the orders for deployment by the soldier have been revoked - thus killing the lawsuit.

Lastly, the soldier in question was recently given the number one spot on Keith Olberman's worst people in America list, and Olbermann described him as a coward, unfit to wear the uniform.

Mike,

I think this has long term very significant issues. Essentially, it brings into question a soldiers ability to disobey an order - and not be punished for it. Which is quite contradictory to "standard operating procedures" and traditional chain of command.

Olbermann, hmmm, that says a lot. Oh, I'm wondering - what branch of the service did he serve in? Personally, this is a wonderful example of the true liberal elitism - which Zilla is well noted for. Olbermann's knocking this guy - and "oh, by the way - I never served a day of my life in military service to defend my country." Way to go Keith!

On a side note, I'm wondering who out here is a "fan" of his? Even Zilla, and those on the left - do you listen to him? Candidly, I find him quite annoying - he just drones on and on - trying to demonstrate a sharp, dry, incisive, and creative sense of humor - and, I just think he's WAY over the top and espouses drivel. Much further to the left than Fox is to the right. And, my political leanings are certainly centrist.

[Mike Furley]

It just goes to show how bad the media is in reporting stuff. I just found this article:

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/777622.html

On May 8, Cook submitted a formal written request to Human Resources Command-St. Louis volunteering to serve one year in Afghanistan with Special Operations Command, U.S. Army Central Command, beginning July 15, Quon said.

The soldier’s orders were issued on June 9.

“A reserve soldier who volunteers for an active duty tour may ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty,” Quon said.

She added that there is an administrative process to request revocation of orders. As of Tuesday afternoon, Cook had not asked for his orders to be revoked, Quon said. By 5 p.m. EDT, the orders had been pulled.

Quon said she could not discuss why the Army revoked the soldier’s orders.

“Because of the Privacy Act, I couldn’t go into it,” Quon said.

A hearing to discuss Cook’s requests is scheduled to take place Thursday in Columbus federal court at 9:30 a.m.


So perhaps this guy requested his deployment be revoked and the Army can't report that due to privacy issues?

It just bugs me that the partisan media (right or left) can't seem to report on this issue with any kind of decent standards. I would think that for precedent's sake, this issue would have been given a modicum of seriousness.

[Medic]

I think it's hilarious the deployment order was dropped. That is an extremely dangerous precedent to set based on the context of the lawsuit.

[Mich97c]

I think it's hilarious the deployment order was dropped. That is an extremely dangerous precedent to set based on the context of the lawsuit.

Can I get out of my taxes based on this?

[Wolvrin704]

Can I get out of my taxes based on this?

Why not? Technically they're not constitutional.

[The Michigan Man]

I think that Obama's birth records should be revealed. Constitutionally, the President must be native to the United States, that is pretty basic.

As far as this soldier avoiding deployment based upon Obama's citizenship, that is bullshit. This soldier is a scam artist. If you don't want to go to war, don't join the military, there is no draft forcing you to. However, if this does force a legal conclusion to Obama's obstruction in finding the truth about where he was born, that is a positive.

[Medic]

Can I get out of my taxes based on this?

lol you wish. (heck I wish too)

[Wolvrin704]

I think that Obama's birth records should be revealed. Constitutionally, the President must be native to the United States, that is pretty basic.

As far as this soldier avoiding deployment based upon Obama's citizenship, that is bullshit. This soldier is a scam artist. If you don't want to go to war, don't join the military, there is no draft forcing you to. However, if this does force a legal conclusion to Obama's obstruction in finding the truth about where he was born, that is a positive.

I think the only way to show whether he truly was born in the US or not is to bring forth a lawsuit, becuase thats the only way to challenge the constitutionality of such an issue. That being the case one could see the possiblity of why the order would be revoked so that the lawsuit could not proceed.

[gator]

What I cannot believe is that some agency doesn't require proof of citizenship either prior to being placed on the presidential ballot, prior to inauguration, or certainly prior to hearing classified information about national security. Heck, if I want to get a defense job after I get my degree, someone will probably run my history down to my kindergarten teacher. One would think that somebody along the way checks something like this, but then again................we are talking about the US government, who coudn't find their own dick with two hands and a flashlight. Not that the President has to show me personally his birth certificate, but citizenship verification should certainly be a step (a mandatory one) on the way to gaining access to that office, and the media should have access to the records of that process. The fact that his citizenship is still an issue is freaking unbelievable (not that people are still asking, but that it hasn't been answered).

P.S. Do you think we could start a movement in this country to get a bill passed through congress that requires verification of citizenship prior to placement on the presidential ballot? Truth is, we don't need a federal law. Not until recently (several years ago) was I aware that people across the country had different voting options for president due to different registration requirements across the country. All we need is one state, with enough electoral votes that a candidate cannot afford to be off that ballot, to require citizenship verification. Maybe some states already require this, but then why wouldn't we have heard about it?

[Mich97c]

What I cannot believe is that some agency doesn't require proof of citizenship either prior to being placed on the presidential ballot, prior to inauguration, or certainly prior to hearing classified information about national security.

I'm not positive but I do believe they do check before they can run. I remember there was Obama's issue of keeping it under lock and seal (in fact all of his personal life is) but there was McCain's issue also of being born on a military base overseas.

And what the hell is a detailed birth certificate? Mine is just one page.

[Mike Furley]

I'm not positive but I do believe they do check before they can run. I remember there was Obama's issue of keeping it under lock and seal (in fact all of his personal life is) but there was McCain's issue also of being born on a military base overseas.

And what the hell is a detailed birth certificate? Mine is just one page.


Based on what I read during the campaign, the parties that place the candidate's name as their nominee are responsible for vetting the candidate's qualifications. In all of the cases filed in the state courts, they were dismissed for either or both of the following reasons:

the litigant did not have standing to bring the case because they failed to show a legal harm being done to them, or

the venue where the case was filed did not have the proper jurisdiction to hear the case.

In either case, this eliminated any responsibilty of the Secretary of State in each state from having any responsibility in checking whether a candidate met the qualifications to be on the ballot.

In the cases filed in Federal Court, they were dismissed for the same reasons

This meant the FEC did not have any responsibilty in vetting the qualifications either.

Someone also tried to raise an issue with the Electoral College, but the Electors are all supporters of the nominee, so they would not willingly challenge the qualifications - though they probably are the ones who should, constitutionally.

A Senate committee in Congress (I forget which one) chaired by Diane Feinstein was also reported as having some sort of oversight, but again, the party of the nominee is not going to have their nominee disbarred from the ballot.

This is the frustrating point for the people on the fringe who think Obama isn't a natural born citizen, or for those like me who just want to see the rule of law respected - there is no clear controlling legal authority that is independent of the party of the nominee that appears to be responsible for making sure a candidate meets the constitutional qualifications.....a problem not considered to be an issue from about the mid 1800's on.

Basically all of the courts have said the citizens have no right bring a legal challenge - which in this country seems a little tyrannical. If the RNC or DNC say somebody is qualified, then the candidate is qualified. Only a willing admission by a candidate or the reporting of the media can bring it to light.

In Obama's case, he provided the Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii, a state issued and accepted form of birth certificate. The only problem is that Hawaii can and has issued (apparently based on news reporting from right wing sites) Certificate of Live Births for children not born in Hawaii, or even te United States. If I understand what the critics are saying, it would be akin to a state issued ID versus a Driver's License. The DL actually permits you to drive, whereas the state issued ID does not. Both are official forms of identification but they don't mean the same thing. Critics claim that Obama was born in Kenya and after the birth, his mom flew back and registered the birth so Obama could receive the Certificate of Live Birth.

Additionally, had both his parents been American citizens he could have received American citizenship automatically - like McCain had been - but in Obama's case, because his father was a foreign national he would not have been eligible for the same consideration.

Obama has the long version of his birth certificate under lock and seal and in Hawaii, no one else has a legal right to view it - or it just doesn't exist because he was in fact not born in America and that's why he has never produced it. Most states that I'm aware of have two birth certificate forms on file. I do. I'm sure you might as well, but you've only ever used the short version because that's all your parents ever needed to register you for little league or schooling, etc.

All of this seems like a ticky tack way by opponents to circumvent the will of the people in the last election, and I'm not keen to that sort of tactic. Nevertheless, I don't like the appearance of everybody "looking the other way" or throwing cases out because they don't want to be the judge that overturns the election of the first minority president.

[zilla]

This my opinion, they dropped the deployment order because who wants this type of guy overseas in battle? Let him stay, throw him out of the military with dishonor, and move on.

Thank you for reading, enjoy your weekend. :)

[amazinblue]

This issue with the birth certificate perturbs me greatly. My parents were naturalized citizens. I am American by birth and have the birth certificate to prove it. It is very simple, produce the proof of citizenship or change the Constitution. And, I do believe that the powers that be are, in fact, hiding something here. In fact, if Obama was actually born on US soil, I believe he has the right to US citizenship.

It's one thing to say "it's political" - it's another to flaunt the law. I believe Obama and the associated judicial and legislative branches are flaunting the law. Oh, isn't Obama a lawyer? I think he would know this. And, I'm wondering if his admission applications would be considered public documents, or his run for the Senate in 2004 - doesn't some documentation - in addition to signatures - need to be provided?

My guess is that Tony Resczko has it.