NYC radio host Steve Malzberg

NYC radio host Steve Malzberg is asking for the long form birth certificate.

Obama's Corrupt Administration Continues

The whistle-blower who was doing his job, Gerald Walpin, has decided to sue the regime for an improper dismissal.

Byron York reports in today’s Washington Examiner:

Gerald Walpin, the AmeriCorps inspector general who was summarily fired in June amid controversy over his investigation of a politically-connected supporter of President Obama, has filed suit alleging that the firing was “unlawful,” “politically driven,” “procedurally defective” and “a transparent and clumsily-conducted effort to circumvent the protections” given to inspectors general under the Inspectors General Reform Act of 2008.

Walpin’s suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, is against the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps. Also named are Nicola Goren, the acting CEO of the Corporation, Frank Trinity, its general counsel, and Raymond Limon, the Corporation’s “chief human capital officer.” The suit asks the court to declare Walpin’s firing unlawful and restore him to his position as the Corporation’s inspector general.

[...]

In the suit, Walpin alleges that all three actions were violations of the job protections given to inspectors general. “There have been at least three attempts to unlawfully remove Mr. Walpin from his post,” the suit says, “the first orally on June 10; the second by writing on June 11; and the third by writing on June 16.”

In addition, Walpin charges that the White House, in its eagerness to remove him for political purposes, never investigated the reasons it cited for the firing. “In the haste to remove Mr. Walpin from his post, not only were there…failures to comply with the statutorily-mandated procedures to preserve the integrity of the Inspector General post from politically motivated job actions,” the suit says, “no investigation was made into the facts alleged as the basis for Mr. Walpin’s termination. In particular, there was no attempt to interview Mr. Walpin or ay members of the staff of the Office of Inspector General who were personally involved in each of the [investigations], nor any of the board members.”

Ed Morrissey writes at Hot Air:

Walpin hasn’t asked for damages in this suit, at least not yet. He wants his attorney costs reimbursed, but mainly he wants the court to force the Obama administration to reinstate him as the IG. Such a determination would underscore the need for IGs to remain politically independent of the executive, especially once they discover fraud involving a presidential contributor.

How realistic would this be? A lawsuit may take years to resolve, and the Obama administration will certainly appeal any judgment against it, either verdicts or injunctions. Walpin is 77 years old now. Realistically speaking, Walpin has almost no chance of effectively winning back his job through the courts. His best hope would be a Republican takeover of Congress in 2010, followed by a real investigation into how Norman Eisen, Obama’s Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform, tried to intimidate Walpin into resigning, and then smeared him as senile when that blew up in Eisen’s face.

John Hinderaker at Power Line opines:

The administration can deal with the suit in some combination of four ways: move for dismissal, move to stay the case, move for a confidentiality order that will prevent facts learned in discovery from becoming public, or buy Walpin off with a settlement. Based on my limited knowledge, it’s hard to see grounds for either a dismissal or a stay, and it will be tough to run out the clock given that the Obama administration has 3 1/2 years left, at least. And Walpin may prove hard to buy off: he got into trouble with the administration (and with the AmeriCorps board) because he wanted to stand on principle rather than sweep a scandal under the rug for the sake of stimulus money, and his suit doesn’t request money damages–only reinstatement. It will be interesting to see whether Obama decides the better part of valor lies in giving Walpin his old job back.

CNN Propaganda

For 3:32 minutes CNN host, Kitty Pilgrim, launched into a botched attempt at bolstering Obama's position on the lack of a long form birth certificate.

Dr. Keyes is interrupted but by 4:26 he is cut off from his position.

Orly Taitz is allowed a comment from 4:31 - 5:00.

Pro-Obama Errol Thomas speaks until 5:36.

From 5:37 - 6:04 John Avlon presents his ideas. The birth certificate advocates are not allowed to interject or question the pro-Obama John Avlon, or allowed to respond to Thomas. Taitz aske if she can respond and she is told "no." Avlon summarizes his point by stating the birth certificate advocates are "nuts."

Taitz tries to respond and has to interject but the CNN commentator gets to summarize
until the end of the piece at 6:39.

CNN has no objectivity whatsoever. They took up most of the time with a preview, then, had only short excerpts of what Taitz and Keyes had to say. They were not allowed to comment or respond.

CNN TRANSCRIPT

Kitty Pilgrim sitting in for Lou Dobbs, Orly Taitz, Alan Keyes, Errol Louis, John Avlon.

KITTY PILGRIM: Coming up, the discredited rumor that won’t go away. Now, questions about President Obama’s place of birth and his eligibility to be president.

PILGRIM: Well, an Army Reserve major is again raising controversy over President Obama’s place of birth. [It never went away.] Now, the Major challenged his deployment orders claiming that President Obama wasn’t born in the United States, and that renders his orders illegal.

Now, a former presidential candidate, Alan Keyes, also filed a lawsuit challenging the president’s right to hold the office, and a hearing on that suit will be held on Monday.

Now, questions about the president’s place of birth have been asked and answered many times since before the election, and the president’s birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii. [This is not factual. The only one who could make this point is Dr. Fukino and Alvin Onaka and they are not quoted on the record anywhere.] The state’s Republic governor and other officials have backed that up. [This is not true. All that was said about Gov. Lingle: "Fukino says that no state official, including Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama's certificate be handled differently." Besides, they can't possibly know that and if they did they are legally unable to address the issue unless Barry gave them permission, which he has not.] CNN has fully investigated the issue, found no basis for the questions about the president’s birthplace, [This is ridiculous. They do not even know what hospital he was born in because Gibbs doesn't even know. The White House has produced conflicting statements about which hospital Barry was born in.] say but the controversy lives on, especially on the Internet.

Joining me now is Orly Taitz and she represents the Army major and filed the Keyes’ lawsuit. Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes joins us. And on the other side, John Avlon who is a columnist with the DailyBeast.com and author of “Independent Nation.” And Errol Louis, columnist for the “New York Daily News” and a CNN, also an attorney.

And so, let me, just before we start, bear with me a bit. There’s overwhelming evidence that proves that his birth certificate is real [This is not true. No genuine long form birth certificate has been made public.] and that was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961. And if you’ll just bear with me, I’ll run through a little bit of the evidence and then we can get to this discussion. Now, the Annenberg political fact check, which is a nonpartisan group, [This is not true. Barry is directly connected to the Annenberg Foundation. He worked for the Chicago Anneberg Challenge with Bill Ayers. The fact that she doesn't knows this makes clear she does not understand the issue.] went to Chicago to view the birth certificate [If this actually happened then this is not what was photographed and placed on the internet.] last year and they released photos and this statement, “FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. [he lie is that they physically touched the original long form birth certificate. Even Gibbs admitted that that one-sided piece of paper is not a birth certificate. And again, if they did actually see the original long form birth certificate it is not what is posted on their website. They posted a Certification of Live Birth. These two documents are two different items.] We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. [State Department requirements do not include natural born status. There is a distinction between U.S. citizen status and a natural born citizen.] Our conclusion: Obama was born in the USA, [They can not possibly conclude the point based on the documentation so far released.] just has he has always said.”

The Republican governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, on record, she says Obama was indeed born in her state and we should note, she did support John McCain. [I have no idea what she is talking about. Politifact wrote: Even the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican who at the time was stumping for John McCain, said it was on the up-and-up. But they - a factchecker - provided no direct quote or reference so it is meaningless.] So, we also have a copy of the “Honolulu Advertiser” the newspaper, August 13, and the “Hawaii Star-Bulletin,” August 14, 1961, both announcing Barack Obama’s birth.

Also, October last year, the director of the Hawaii Department of Health wrote a letter stating, “I have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Senator Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedure.” [Yes. But she did not say what was on it and more importantly she said nothing about that COLB on the internet. And her spokeswoman Janice Okubo, who has not seen his actual birth certificate said: "I don't know that it's possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents."]

PolitiFact.com reissued their results from the investigation they conducted in June of last year and they say, “Since we published Obama’s birth certificate, [This is not true; it is not a birth certificate.] questions about its authenticity have been frequent and fierce. After reviewing the evidence, we are confident of our rulings.” ["There is not one shred of evidence to disprove PolitiFact's conclusion that the candidate's name is Barack Hussein Obama, or to support allegations that the birth certificate he released isn't authentic." He didn't release a birth certificate making their "findings" null and void. And the only way to know if that COLB is "authentic" is to see what Dr. Fukino saw. There is nothing proving that COLB has anything to do with his birth certificate.]

This is the last one, thanks for bearing with me. The White House press briefing this week, reporter from the “World Net Daily” pressed again about the birth certificate, the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said this following comment:

ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECY: Do all of your listeners and the listeners throughout this country the service to which any journalist owes those listeners, and that is the pursuit of the Nobel Truth, and the Noble Truth is that the president was born in Hawaii, a state of the United States of America.

[She left out his preceding exchange where he admitted as in "I Know" that what was on the internet - the COLB - was not a birth certificate and also that he did not know the name of the hospital Barry was born in.]

PILGRIM: Now, Alan Keyes, you’ve been patient letting me get through all that, but what more do you need to be convinced? [What Dr. Fukino looked at. That, yes, Barry can get.]

(LAUGHTER)

ALAN KEYES, FMR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Some evidence. And the evidence is something that president Obama is strenuously blocking. You ask me to prove that I was born in New York City at the time and hospital I say, and I will give you a certified copy of a full birth certificate with a doctor’s signature, the hospital, and everything else. I won’t direct you to some photograph on the Internet and a bunch of hearsay statements that would not be accepted as evidence in any court of law.

And so the very simple question is, why spend 800,000 to a million dollars blocking the birth certificate? Blocking records at school and college that would in any way have a bearing on the question…

PILGRIM: All right, Alan…

KEYES: Both of his birth and of his citizenship claims at various times in his life. Why is he going to all this trouble, if as they say, the matter is resolved? Can’t be resolved by a bunch of statements and assertions.

PILGRIM: OK, Orly, we have to keep this quicker, but please tell me…[Keyes = 9 sentences.]

ORLY TAITZ, ATTORNEY: OK, Obama never provided his birth certificate. What he provided is certification of live birth that was issued last year that does not have the name of the doctor, does not have the name of the hospital, does not have any signatures. Do you know that Hawaii has a statute 338, that allows foreign-born children of Hawaiian residence to get Hawaiian birth certificates. Did you know that?

PILGRIM: Errol, I would like you to respond. [Taitz gets 4.]

ERROL LOUIS, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS: Listen, I think — I think what we have here is a case where under the guise of saying, well, we can’t trust whether or not he should be president because we don’t have the evidence, it’s actually the reverse. These are folks, and there are a number of them, and some of them are raising money like “World Net Daily” which is as far as I’m concerned, running a scam, where they’re selling all kinds of bumper stickers and stuff like that, and I don’t know what Miss Taitz is taking in the way of legal fees.

(CROSSTALK)

They’re raising legal fees from across the country and the reality is they don’t accept that the president is the president, and, therefore, they work backward and there will never be enough proof to satisfy them.

[He cannot possibly say that until the birth certificate is released.]

PILGRIM: All right, John, I have to let…

You’ve offered a mountain of evidence in addition to two birth announcements. That’s a pretty deep conspiracy. What we have here, you know…

[MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE? Go back and read what "evidence" there was. And he is supposedly a lawyer. At least he separates the birth announcements from the word "proof".]

(CROSSTALK)

JOHN AVLON, DAILYBEAST.COM: No, what we have here is Obama derangement syndrome. This pathological hatred of the president posing as patriotism. Ambassador Keyes says that President Obama has called him a radical communist. You on your blog have repeatedly referred to the administration as Gestapo SS. Which is it? Get your story straight. Is he a Nazi or a communist? You guys are nuts.

[What did he say of importance? Where was discussion of fact, evidence, or proof? This is simply an ad hominem statement. I believe the tactic was to divide and counter.]

PILGRIM: Orly, I have to ask you to let everyone at least have their say before you respond to it. I believe we’re out of time, I’m sorry to say.

(LAUGHTER)

TAITZ: Let me say one more thing, in order to be the president, you have to have to have two parents that are citizens. Obama’s father was never a citizen of this country.

PILGRIM: All right, Orly, we have to call it, there. I’m sorry. Thank you very much, all of you, for joining in this very lively debate.

Debate?

Even that is annoying, it was CNN propaganda.

Orly Taitz and Major Cook Press Interview

Major Stefan Frederick Cook filed a suit July 8 in federal court asking for conscientious objector status and a preliminary injunction based upon his belief that President Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.

By: Joe Paull

(7.16.09) -- Cook and his attorney Dr. Orly Taitz speak with reporters outside of a Georgia courthouse.

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, are not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

Natural born citizen and President of the United States: Theodore Roosevelt.

Hidden Cameras Document Destruction of American Environment

Report on the Arizona border on what was formerly pristine American land. Written and narrated by Janice Kephart, "Hidden Cameras on the Arizona Border," tells of a region threatened by increased illegal immigration, the Huachuca Mountains and Coronado National Forest in the southeast quadrant of Arizona.

Mom and Baseball

No one noticed he throws like a girl? He barely made the plate.

American Trailer for the Chicago Khilafah Conference USA 2009

This is a trailer promoting the Chicago Khilafah Conference USA 2009 sponsored by Hizb ut Tahrir America. The event is confirmed for Sunday, 19 July 2009 11AM - 5 PM.

Hilton Hotel
Grand Ballroom
9333 South Cicero Avenue
Oak Lawn, IL 60453

This trailer is produced in the USA.

Baseball is a Barometer of the Change from 2001 - Today

30 October 2001

Earlier in the week it occurred to me that a difference has happened in the last 8 years: America has changed significantly. Baseball is a barometer of the "Change" from 2001 - today.

About That Stimulus Money: When?

Who Would Have Thought That Liberal Jewish Comedian Jackie Mason Would Say This?

As he describes himself, "The Ultimate Jew," Jackie Mason, shares his thoughts.

Liberal Talk Show Host: Lynn Samuals - "Obama is lying to you"

"Home Visits" by the CDC in Health Rationing Plan

The health-care rationing bill approved this week by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee includes a ghoulish phrase.

The committee’s official summary of the bill states:

“Authorizes a demonstration program to improve immunization coverage. Under this program, CDC will provide grants to states to improve immunization coverage of children, adolescents, and adults through the use of evidence-based interventions. States may use funds to implement interventions that are recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force, such as reminders or recalls for patients or providers, or home visits.”

Home visits by the state will sends government officials to “implement interventions” in private homes designed “to improve immunization coverage of children.”

Individual Private Medical Insurance Is Illegal Under the Health Rationing Plan

Individual private medical insurance is illegal under the health rationing plan. Investor's Business Daily reported finding this clause of the 1,018-page document.

Its Not Fascism When We Do It

Harry C. Alford, Black Chamber of Commerce CEO, describes liberal fascist Senator Boxer (D-California) as "God awful" for her "condescending" racial remarks. Boxer tried to enter into the record a NAACP letter, unread, allegedly supporting her environmental agenda.
Alford objected that she was only viewing him as a racial representative and not as a business leader.

Retaliation Against Major Cook

From Orly Taitz, Esq.

Retaliation has occurred or begun against Plaintiff Stefan Frederick Cook for the exercise of his First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances and Plaintiff Cook accordingly here seeks an injunction against the continuance or full implementation of this official governmental retaliation or in the alternative for a writ of mandamus, order to show cause, or rule nisi be issued to the Department of Defense commanding it to cease, cure, or remedy all retaliation against Plaintiff Cook. The circumstances are as follows:



Late on Tuesday afternoon, July 14, 2009, at around about 4:30 pm, Plaintiff Stefan Frederick Cook returned a call to an unknown telephone call from (813) 828-5884 and was told that his services were no longer required in Afghanistan and that he need not report for duty. In addition Plaintiff an e-mail with the revocation order attached from Master Sargent Miguel Matos (Exhibit C). Upon receipt of the revocation, Plaintiff Major Cook called his civilian boss, the CEO of Simtech, Inc., a closely held corporation that does DOD contracting in the general field of information technology/systems integration, at which Plaintiff Major was employed until taking a Military Leave of Absence on Friday July 10, 2009, a senior systems engineer and architect, in preparation for his deployment to Afghanistan. (Plaintiff has five Cisco Systems certifications in information technology dating from 2000 and just recertified in June 2009 for the Cisco Certified Design Expert qualification exam.)



The CEO of Simtech, Inc., Larry Grice, explained to Plaintiff over a series of four conversations within the next two hours, that he had been terminated. Grice told the Plaintiff that he would no longer be welcome in his former position at SOCOM but that Grice wanted to see whether he could find something within the company (Simtech, Inc.) for Cook. The upshot was that at this time Grice did not have anything for Plaintiff to do. Grice told Plaintiff, in essence, that the situation had become “nutty and crazy”, and that Plaintiff would no longer be able to work at his old position.



Grice explained that he had been in touch with Defense Security Services (an agency of the Department of Defense[1], with regional offices located in SOCOM Headquarters at McDill Airforce Base in Tampa, Florida), and that DSS had not yet made a determination whether Plaintiff Major Cook’s clearances would be pulled, but Grice made clear to Cook that it was DSS who had compelled Cook’s termination. Essentially, because of the “nutty and crazy” situation and the communications received from DSS was no longer employable by him at all. So he was not optimistic about getting me another job at the company. Grice also reported to Plaintiff that there was some gossip that “people were disappointed in” the Plaintiff because they thought he was manipulating his deployment orders to create a platform for political purposes. Grice then discussed Plaintiff’s expectation of receiving final paychecks (including accrued leave pay) already owed, without any severance pay, and wished the Plaintiff well.

A federal agency (such as the Department of Defense, acting through the Defense Security Services Agency) clearly violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if it takes or fails to take (or threatens to take or fail to take) a personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant because of any disclosure of information by the employee or applicant that he or she reasonably believes evidences a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. What has happened in the present case of Stefan Frederick Cook is that a federal agency appears to have taken action against Stefan Frederick Cook’s private employer, Simtech, Inc., which is a closely held corporation owned and operated by members of a single family, who are as much victims of the Department of Defense’ heavy-handed interference with Plaintiff Cook’s private-sector employment as is Plaintiff Cook himself.

AN OFFICER’S DUTY TO OBEY LAWFUL ORDERS:

This Plaintiff, at the time of his original induction into service, took the United States, military oath of an enlisted man, which reads:

“I, Stefan Frederick Cook, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God”



Later, however, he took the oath of an officer of the United States Armed Forces, as follows:

“I, Stefan Frederick Cook, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of Major do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)



This oath is based on 5 U.S.C. §3331:

An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.



See also: http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm



An officer does not swear to obey the orders of the President. Rather, he assumes the obligation to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic (for example, a possible Presidential Usurper, if it were shown by clear-and-convincing evidence that a person took the office under false pretenses of constitutional qualifications). The Founding Fathers had the foresight to protect and secure against a situation such as that now facing the United States. The officer oath is a safeguard to protect the Constitution against a corrupt elected government. Officers have an obligation to defend the Constitution. The officer oath does not even mention following the UCMJ laws as does the enlisted oath. Furthermore, Plaintiff Stefan Frederick Cook carries with him a card entitled “Army Values” issued by the United States Army (Exhibit D), which commands in part as follows:

“Bear truth faith and allegiance to the United States Constitution, the Army, your unit, and other soldiers.”

“Put the welfare of the Nation, the army, and your subordinates before your own.”

“Do what’s right, legally and morally.”

“Face fear, danger, or adversity (physical or moral).”

Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II of the United States Code contains the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 10 U.S.C. §890 (ART.90), makes it an offence subject to court-martial if any military personnel “willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer,” 10 U.S.C. §891 (ART.91) “lawful order of a warrant officer”, and most importantly, 10 U.S.C. §892 (ART.92) provides court-martial for any officer who

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;



In each case, Plaintiff submits that it is implicit though not expressly stated that an officer is and should be subject to court-martial, because he will be derelict in the performance of his duties, if he does not inquire as to the lawfulness, the legality, the legitimacy of the orders which he has received, whether those orders are specific or general.



Unfortunately the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not provide a means for ascertaining the legality of orders, and accordingly, this Plaintiff is left with no choice but recourse to the ordinary civil courts of the United States to seek a determination of what he considers to be a question of paramount constitutional and legal importance: the validity of the chain of command under a President whose election, eligibility, and constitutional status appear open to serious question.



Plaintiff Major Stefan Frederick Cook is not a pacifist. He does not object to war or the use of military force in the implementation of national policy or the enforcement of international law. Above all, Plaintiff is not a coward, he is not engaged in mutiny, sedition, insubordination, contempt, disrespect, or any kind of resistance to any general or specific lawful order of which he knows or has received notice.



Plaintiff Major Stefan Frederick Cook realized and accepted as a matter of political reality (although it is very hard for him to bear personally) that many might criticize or even shun him, saying that he is not acting in the best interests of his country for trying to uphold the plain letter of the Constitution. Others may cynically ridicule this Plaintiff when, as an officer responsible not only to obey those above him but to protect those under his command, he comes to this Court asking for the right to establish the legality of orders received not only for his own protection, but for the protection of all enlisted men and women who depend on HIS judgment that the orders he follows are legal.



Above all, when Plaintiff Major Stefan Frederick Cook submitted and contended, as he continues to submit and contend, that he filed and will prosecute this lawsuit and seeks a preliminary injunction against the Defendants’ enforcement of potentially illegal orders for the benefit of all servicemen and women and for the benefit all officers in all branches of the U.S. Military, he knew that those in power illegitimately may seek to injure his career, although frankly, he had no idea how fast they would work, or that his civilian career would be ended within five days of exercising his First Amendment Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances. He knew that he risked all and he did and continues to do so in the conscientious belief that he does so for not merely his own, but the general good. It is also now true that the Department of Defense has taken retaliatory action against this Plaintiff through DSS, and that Plaintiff now has nothing more to lose, and must defend his civil rights, his constitutional duty (oath of office as an officer) and above all his honor and his good name against all those who would and have criticized him for making the decision to stand up and demand proof.



Quite simply, the Plaintiff cannot escape from the mandates of his conscience and his awareness, his educated consciousness, that all military personnel but especially commissioned officers have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

Professor Hitomi Takemura of Kyushu University has recently (December 5, 2008) published a book entitled: International Human Right to Conscientious Objection to Military Service and Individual Duties to Disobey Manifestly Illegal Orders (New York: Springer-Verlag). This book stands as an international legal analysis of the duties of military officers, and it is significant, if not possibly somewhat ironic, that President Barack Hussein Obama has repeatedly argued that the United States should conform itself to international law and customs. Plaintiff does not in this case seek a judicial determination of whether or not there is a general duty to disobey all unlawful orders, but rather to decide whether an officer, such as the Plaintiff, may seek judicial determination of the lawful or unlawful nature of an order based on a constitutional challenge to the chain of command originating from a probably ineligible President and Commander-in-Chief. Plaintiff files this suit to clarify how he can both obey all lawful orders and avoid dereliction of his duties so as to escape court-martial under the UCMJ if he does NOT question the legality of the orders he has received. Plaintiff seeks to avoid not only court-martial in this country, but also treatment as a war-criminal or terrorist, not eligible even for protection under the Geneva convention, if he were found to be a merely mercenary soldier in a private army of slaves, “owned” or controlled by an unconstitutional and therefore illegal commander, if he does not ask the question: “is this order legal?”

NEVER BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES

Plaintiff presents the key question in this case as one of first impression, never before decided in the history of the United States: Is an officer entitled to refuse orders on grounds of conscientious objection to the legitimate constitutional authority of the current de facto Commander-in-Chief? In the alternative, is an officer entitled to a judicial stay of the enforcement of facially valid military orders where that officer can show evidence that the chain-of-command from the commander-in-chief is tainted by illegal activity? In the alternative, does the issuance of orders based on a constitutionally infirm chain-of-command under Article II create or render military service as a mere “involuntary servitude” in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment which may be judicially enjoined?



Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against the United States Department of Defense, and each of Plaintiff’s commanding officers, as expressly authorized by 5 U.S.C. §702. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he will suffer legally cognizable but irreparable injury because of agency (U.S. Department of Defense) action if the order attached as Exhibit A were to be enforced, and that Plaintiff is adversely affected and aggrieved by this agency action within the meaning of Article II, §§1-2 of the United States Constitution, and is entitled to judicial review thereof. This action is filed in this United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, which venue is appropriate in that deployment from Fort Benning, Georgia, has been ordered to take place on July 18, 2009 (see Exhibit A).

This suit is filed seeking purely injunctive and declaratory relief (and no money damages) and the Complaint to be filed within 10-15 days of the filing of this Application for Preliminary Injunction (circumstances have changed so wildly in the past few days that it is impossible to have a complaint ready by the time of the first scheduled hearing on July 16, 2009, to be held in Columbus, Georgia) states a claim that the Department of Defense and its officers, including the de facto President Barack Hussein Obama, as de facto Commander in Chief, together with Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, and Colonels Louis B. Wingate, Thomas D. MacDonald and Wanda L. Good as employees thereof, have acted illegally/i.e., without actual legal authority (valid chain of command) in issuing this order, or else failed to act in a de jure official capacity at all, or else have acted under color of legal authority by pretending that a lawful chain of command under the authority of a constitutionally qualified and elected President has been established pursuant to Article II, §§1-2 of the United States Constitution, when in fact, the current de facto Commander-in-Chief is not constitutionally qualified nor was he legally elected or appointed to succeed to the office of President of the United States.

Plaintiff submits that this court is required by federal common law to enter a Preliminary Injunction in this case and to enjoin Defendants’ persecution of and retaliation against Plaintiff Stefan Frederick Cook for questioning the legitimacy of the chain of command predicate to the validity of to the orders contained in Exhibits A, B, and C for the following reasons:

(1) The United States Supreme Court has held that Federal rules are “necessary to protect uniquely federal interests”. Texas Industries, Inc., v Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U.S. 630, 640 (1981), quoting Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 426 (1964).

(2) Included in this category is the creation of federal common law to protect federal interests in international law, which are particularly relevant to the legitimacy of United States military presence and intervention in foreign countries, of which the Plaintiff herein will be an integral part and instrument if the orders set forth in Exhibit A are not enjoined from enforcement. Id.

(3) The issue or question raised by this suit is uniquely federal and properly (and in fact necessarily) subject to the exercise of federal power: the question whether the constitutional legitimacy of the chain of command under a constitutionally legitimate commander-in-chief pursuant to Article II, §§1-2 of the Constitution is essential to the maintenance of balance of powers and separation of powers under the constitution, and cannot be lightly dismissed in light of the Plaintiff’s evidence that the de facto President of the United States is not only constitutionally unqualified, but procured his election by fraudulent and illegitimate means which may constitute a pattern of racketeering utilizing the apparatus of corrupt organizations in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq.

(4) A substantive federal rule of law to govern this issue has never been developed, presumably because there has never been a serious challenge to the constitutional eligibility and legitimacy of any commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces prior to the apparent election of Barack Hussein Obama, but the novelty and uniqueness of this situation only underscores and does not diminish the critical nature of the inquiry to be made. See, e.g., Martha A. Field “Sources of Law: the Scope of Federal Common Law”, 99 Harvard L. Rev. 881, 886 (1986) and David J. Barron & Martin S. Lederman “The Commander-in-Chief at the Lowest Ebb—Framing the Problem, Doctrine, and Original Understanding,” 121 Harvard L. Rev. 689, 712, 748 (2008).

(5) It is probably not an overstatement to submit that there has never been a greater need to create federal law to safeguard federal interests than now, when the constitutional legitimacy of the President and by extension of all exercises of Presidential power are called into question. There are no direct precedents in all of United States History, there are no state rules which could reasonably be applied. To paraphrase the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, “the rights and duties of the United States” in regard to the constitutional legitimacy and qualifications of its highest officers “are governed by federal rather than” any other law. 318 U.S. 363 at 366 (1943).

(6) “The authority to” inaugurate the President and determine whether his orders are entered with legitimate authority or not have “its origins in the Constitutions and the Statutes of the United States and [is] in no way dependent upon the laws of” any particular state or foreign jurisdiction. Id. at 366-7.

(7) Few will dispute that the legitimacy of the President and of the Presidency itself is a matter of paramount concern (even exceeding that of the government issued commercial paper/checks at issue in Clearfield Trust) and importance to the several states and all foreign jurisdictions which may have to deal with the most powerful nation in the world. As noted above, the legitimacy of the Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief affects the relationships of the Federal Government particularly with those nations in which this nation takes and implements action and policy by and through its military forces on foreign soil. See also Erwin Chemerinsky Federal Jurisdiction, 5th ed. (2007) 363.

(8) Thus, federal interests of incomparable dimensions exist which justify this court’s creation of federal law and no challenged action instituted by the executive branch should be allowed to proceed until clear criteria have been established to guide this determination. To hold otherwise would be to reduce the constitution to notions of realpolitik and a government of men asserting their power by force rather than laws.

(9) Plaintiff submits that in the absence of a constitutionally valid and legitimate commander-in-chief, he cannot serve to impose the military might and power of this country in a foreign land as a matter of principle. Plaintiff asks that he therefore be granted status as a conscientious objector on moral, religious and philosophical grounds, not that Plaintiff is a pacifist or in any way opposed to the use of military force to further the legitimate interests of the United States, but on the grounds that he cannot abide the notion that he might possibly be implementing by force the policy of a government whose executive power and commander-in-chief may have assumed power unlawfully and might have established themselves on a foundation of fraud, lies, and deceit.

(10) The evidence contained in Exhibit E shows that Barack Hussein Obama might have used as many as 149 addresses and 39 social security numbers prior to assuming the office of President. The social security number most commonly used by Barack Hussein Obama, is one issued in the state of Connecticut, the state where Barack Hussein Obama never resided and it shows him to be 119 years old. This coupled with the fact that Mr. Obama’s grandmother, Madeline Dunham was a volunteer at the Oahu Circuit Court Probate Department and had access to the social security numbers of the deceased, constitutes circumstantial evidence casting serious doubt on the legitimacy of Mr. Obama and his claims of being born on US territory. Exhibit F, the expert affidavit of renowned forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines, states that the certification of live birth posted by Mr. Obama as verification of his legitimacy, cannot be verified as genuine, and should be presumed fraudulent.

(11) This doubt is further reinforced by the fact that the Hawaiian statute 338 allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain Hawaiian birth certificates, that those birth certificates can be obtained based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence from the hospital; that “late birth certificates” (i.e. non-contemporaneously, post-facto, in two words “potentially fabricated”) can lawfully, under this statute, be obtained at any time later in life.

(12) That is of paramount concern, as Barack Hussein Obama’s original birth certificate was never provided by the state of Hawaii, but only a statement that there is an original “long birth certificate” document on file. The statement repeatedly provided by Hawaiian officials is quite simply incomplete, evasive, and without explanation of critical details: namely, whether it is a foreign birth certification or one obtained based on a statement of one relative only, or a late certification or amended one, obtained upon adoption by his stepfather. See Exhibit C: the Certification of Live Birth posted by Mr. Obama on the Internet, cannot be treated as genuine without examining the original on file with the Health department of the State of Hawaii.

(13) In addition or in the alternative, Plaintiff submits that, absent clearly established and indisputable proof of constitutional right to serve as commander-in-chief, the army becomes merely a corps of chattel slaves under the illegitimate control of a private citizen, in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment and that this Plaintiff is entitled to constitutionally complete and sufficient proof of his commander-in-chief’s eligibility and entitlement to serve in this capacity under Article I, §§1-2 prior to obeying orders from a man against whom mountains of evidence now exist (Exhibits E and F, and additional evidence which can be provided at the Preliminary Injunction hearing or in conjunction with the Complaint to be filed in this case) to show that Barack Hussein Obama obtained the office of President without legal qualifications, and further that he did so by and through a continuous pattern and program of fraud and deceit.

(14) A long line of cases now exists to show that 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1988 may be used to bring suit against Federal Officials for violations of constitutional rights, and 42 U.S.C. §1988(a) specifically authorizes courts to adapt or fashion common law remedies to prevent constitutional violations where no adequate remedy exists or is set forth in law—such specially fashioned remedies would include expressly empowering military officers to challenge orders based on constitutional defects in the chain of command by means of equitable judicial proceedings such as this one, and to permit injunctions against deployment where the chain of command is reasonably subject to question.

(15) Critical among the cases applying §1983 to suits against Federal (indeed, Military) officers, is the 1982 case of Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) and closely related successor Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985). These cases held that U.S. Government officials (such as Defendants in this case) could only claim qualified immunity, and that even qualified immunity was available to them only if they followed well-established law and norms of construction or interpretation of law.

(16) Plaintiff submits and here asks this Court to find, declare, and hold that the requirement that the President of the United States be a natural born citizen, set forth in Article II, §1 of the Constitution, creates a “clearly established … constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 818.

(17) The right in question which Plaintiff asks this Court to define and recognize as a matter of first impression should be defined either as the unilateral right to disobey or the right to seek a judicial injunction against the enforcement of orders given on the unproven de facto authority of a government headed by a man against whom such evidence of high likelihood of fraud as the affidavit of Neal Sankey (attached as Exhibit E) can be assembled from public records alone.

(18) In other words, Plaintiff asks this Court to rule, declare, and adjudge, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988(a), that an officer of the Army of the United States (all officers)!) must have the right to question apparently illegitimate authority in the courts or else in the course of his employment as an officer directly within the army chain of command or in both capacities and by both manners. Current law does not establish any means of verifying the constitutional legitimacy of orders or the constitutional chain of command.

(19) Unlike the Federal officers in Wilson v. Layne who brought reporters along with them when they executed search warrants (526 U.S. 703 [1999]), there IS a simple consensus of authority on the question of the requirement that the President be a natural born citizen sufficient to provide a basis for a reasonable army officer to doubt that his country’s commander-in-chief might be accepted as legitimate outside the United States. This Court should rule that a reasonable officer has the right to ask, indeed to demand, that a federal court enjoin his overseas deployment until such time as the answers raised by Barack Hussein Obama’s use of multiple addresses (almost all outside of any reasonable connection to his “official” life history) and social security numbers, including at least one social security number of a deceased person (Exhibit B).

(20) That this Plaintiff claims status as a conscientious objector must be clarified and emphasized in several ways: Plaintiff is no pacifist, nor an anti-war protester. Plaintiff actually does want to go to Afghanistan and he verifies this fact, as he does this entire petition, under penalty of perjury (as required by Rule 65(b)(1).

(21) Plaintiff believes that his service in Afghanistan would be positive and serve the interests of world peace, the advancement of the people of Afghanistan, and the security of the people of the United States (and the allies of the United States in Europe and around the world).

(22) However, Plaintiff is also aware that the general opinion in the rest of the world is that Barack Hussein Obama has, in essence, slipped through the guardrails to become President. The United States and her military, commanded by a man who has himself expressed pacifist and anti-military opinions, are the targets of derision and ridicule abroad.

(23) The grounds for grant of a Preliminary Injunction are well known: (a) likelihood of success on the merits, (b) balance of hardships, (c) irreparable injury to Plaintiff, and (d) public policy favors the issuance of injunctive relief.

(24) Plaintiff submits that as to the likelihood of success on the merits—since this is a question of first impression, Plaintiff should be awarded the temporary injunction regardless of the lack of precedent, (a) because of the critical nature of any serious question concerning the constitutional legitimacy of the President as Commander-in-Chief, (b) because of the critical federal interest in this question, especially from the standpoint of military presence abroad, in potentially if nor certainly hostile territory, (c) because of the mounting evidence of fraud on the part of the de facto President shown in Exhibits E and F, and (d) because of the well-known but as yet undecided question of Barack Hussein Obama’s legitimacy, qualified immunity does not protect any officer from a potentially erroneous decision in this matter, Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits—at least on the question that standards need to be established for constitutional legitimacy of the President, and that military officers must have the right (especially in time of domestic peace and no known imminent invasion or attack on the country) to demand proof of legitimate chain of command.

(25) As to balance of hardships, the Plaintiff Stefan Frederick Cook is a Patriotic American who voluntarily joined the army and placed his life on the line for the defense of freedom and the rule of law (“truth, justice, and the American way of life”) as his career.

(26) All three Plaintiffs have found reason to doubt the legitimacy of the Commander-in-Chief, and demands proof, at the very minimum, of the Barack Hussein Obama’s constitutional legitimacy and eligibility, which is made more acute by the evidence of multiple addresses and social security numbers attached as Exhibit E.

(27) However, Barack Hussein Obama, in order to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as President, basically needs only produce a single unique historical document for the Plaintiff’s inspection and authentication: namely, the “long-form” birth certificate which will confirm whether Barack Hussein Obama was in fact born to parents who were both citizens of the United States in Honolulu, Hawaii, in or about 1961. It is no answer to show the short-form birth certificate which has no seals and is signed by no one and is produced, as most birth-certificates are, by computerized reproduction. In light of Exhibits E, the affidavit of Neal Sankey, as well as Exhibit F, Plaintiff submits under his sworn acknowledgement and verification below, that only final proof of Barack Obama’s natural born citizenship by authentic, and authenticated, legal documents will prevent this Plaintiff from fear that he is serving a false master, a false commander-in-chief, a false President, and thereby violating the international laws of nations by acting without legitimate authority.

(28) However, as a practical matter, the mere execution by the President of a comprehensive medical release under HIPAA (Privacy Rule of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) would permit the Plaintiffs to obtain most of the information which they are seeking; separate releases of the President of his personal passport files and history maintained by the United States Department of State and Social Security Commission would resolve all other questions raised by Exhibits E and F.

(29) Accordingly, the President needs to sign three releases concerning his personal and private history prior to becoming President, and the President cannot possibly suffer any unjustified inconvenience or harm from the execution of these documents, especially since Presidents have historically disclosed their full medical histories as a routine matter of public interest and concern.

(30) The balance of equities, the balance of hardships, clearly favor the entry of this Temporary Restraining Order. From the Plaintiff’s standpoint, if the history of World War II and the Nuremberg Trials teaches us anything, it is that no military officer should ever rely on “apparent” authority or “facial” legitimacy of orders. Every officer has an independent duty to use his conscience and evaluate the legitimacy of the chain of command under which he operates, and when reasonable doubts arise, the Courts should afford remedy and protection. If Plaintiff were to proceed to wage war on the people of Afghanistan, even the Taliban and other proven sponsors of terrorism, under the orders of an illegitimate President, Plaintiff runs the risk of acting as a de jure war criminal—not entitled to the protections of international law at all.

(31) All that is asked of the President is that he humbly acknowledge and produce his true and complete “original” birth certificate. So long as this form proves the Barack Hussein Obama’s status as a “natural born” citizen, the President and the Presidency will not only have suffered no harm, but will have reaffirmed the faith of the people in the rule of law as dominating all men, including the President of the United States.

(32) As discussed above, the balance of the equities and hardships shows that, so long as the President is and has always been honest and truthful about his place of birth and parentage, he will suffer no harm at all—and if the President has not always been honest and truthful about his origins, then he will suffer no unjustified harm or injury as a result of the necessary disclosures.

(33) However, the potential harm to the Plaintiff if relief is denied is that he will be required to serve heavily burdened by a doubtful and unwilling conscience, which in itself is and ought to be repugnant to a free society. Involuntary servitude was abolished in 1865, and this Court should not underestimate the crisis of confidence which an order of unquestioning obedience will have, nationwide, on the legitimacy and “full faith” which can be accorded to its officers and their actions.

(34) A man who doubts his commander-in-chief cannot be a good soldier, unless he is instructed that “following orders” is the highest virtue of all, and surely the Nuremberg Trials, and the Trial of Adolf Eichman in Jerusalem, have proven this position false and dangerous to civilization and the moral and ethical administration of government. This harm, this injury to conscience, is not speculative, it is not remote, it is immediate and without any legal remedy of damages or later honor bestowed as a result of service.

(35) Perhaps slightly more remote and speculative, but possible, plausible, and by no means without precedent in the past century is the possibility that if THIS Plaintiff is not allowed access to the truth, someone else may yet expose that the current de facto President serves in mockery and defiance of the Constitution, and that all his military adventures abroad will eventually be classified as private, slave armies engaged in private, piratical warfare unsanctioned by International Law and subject this Plaintiff to prosecution as a war criminal.

(36) As far as public policy goes, allusion has already been made to the crisis of public confidence—even if only 10-20 percent of the American people believe that Barack Hussein Obama is lying about or hiding the details of his true place of birth or national origins—this Court would be doing the public interest a great service by protecting this Plaintiff’s right to conscientiously object based on his reasonable and well-founded doubts concerning the chain of command originating from a questionable commander-in-chief.

(37) Furthermore, judicial resolutions of festering doubts and lack of confidence can diffuse social tension and re-establish confidence in the rule of law more generally.

(38) Plaintiff points out that there was another time in United States history when officers of the military were forced to make a choice whether to follow the central government or their consciences. That time in United States history was in 1861 when some of the finest officers of the United States Army felt that they and their constitution had been betrayed by the central government, and that is how Mexican War heroes Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, among so many others, became the leaders of the Confederate States of America.

(39) There were no lawsuits filed at that time—5 U.S.C. §702 and 42 U.S.C. §§1983-1988 had not yet been enacted. But the public interest is served by permitting Army officers to seek judicial protection and assistance when they question the legitimacy and authority of the commander-in-chief with regard to moral and constitutional issues.

(40) There are no “competing” governments now—no seceding states, however over 30 states have either passed or considered the bills of Sovereignty lately, which can be a step towards secession and a sign of vast dissatisfaction with the Federal government and the President.

(41) In historical hindsight it is easy to say the Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee hurt their own states of Mississippi and Virginia by supporting secession.

Recent cyberattacks have little impact on U.S.

The move to restrict Americans on the Internet will no doubt be justified on security grounds; however, many security analysts have documented that the recent cyber attacks do not threaten us. Any large company that works with its service provider can forestall most attacks; the government could simply do the same thing.

Why Obama's squirming over Honduras

Obama: Not a Natural Born Citizen According to the Constitution

The mainstream media seems to have broken its silence over the illegitimacy issues regarding Obama's failure to comply with the Constitution. It is news today now that the reservations have percolated for months; the mainstream media has finally decided to air the information. The real news is that the news is reporting it at all.

Bachmann, Poe introduce bill to curb yearly Census survey

As a move to allay fears that the legitimate questions in the decennial census are overly intrusive two Representatives have introduced legislation to curb the invasive information collected. Representatives Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and Ted Poe (R-Texas) have introduced the legislation.

Bachmann vowed that she would not fill out the legally-mandated Census in 2010 over concerns about the nature of some of the information collected by the survey.

This is a good piece of legislation that deserves to be passed.

Obama's Army