Many are voicing opposition to MAJ Cook's principled decision to challenge Obama's legality as "skipping out", "cowardly", "letting down his troops", all of which is bogus, shallow minded and missing the major issue of Constitutional destruction....... I could say a great more about MAJ Cook's patriotism and motives but Rurik wrote a comment at Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler that does an excellent job in discussing in some depth the issue. Following is a post by Rurik:
Quote:
The Dispute Over Major Cook
The controversy about Major Cook is the source of special discomfort for me. Over the last three years or so I have actively confronted the commie creeps of the IVAW, whose attempts to avoid duty tours in Iraq and Afghanistan appear superficially similar. I have veteran friends who have taken stances on both sides of this issue, and I dread that I will lose personal friends over it.
The IVAW have always declared their refusal to deploy is based on “moral” or “political” judgments about the war itself and not the legitimacy of the commander. I cannot recall hearing “Florida 2000” invoked for refusal to deploy. Nor am I aware of any of those deserters and rushing forward to deploy on combat tours now that there is a dark-skinned commander. For them it is entirely a mixture of political and personal reasons.
It appears to be different with Major Cook. He claims that he would wish to deploy for a combat tour, but refuses to do so because he believes the commander to be an illegitimate usurper. It is not the mission, but the commander at issue for him. For the IVAW types, the political issues are a means for avoiding deployment; for Major Cook, avoiding deployment is a means of forcing the issue on the political. Actually a reversal.
At the core of this issue is the legitimacy of the president. As some have pointed out, never before has a president’s citizenship and eligibility been challenged. Completely true. Never before has the eligibility of a president been disputed. Moral, intellectual and personal unfitness are always and invariably disputed and challenged. For all candidates of every party. That is the nature of our system. From 1991 I continuously proclaimed the unfitness of Clinton , but I never once doubted his eligibility, nor did anyone else. Early in his first run evidence was floated that seemed to show that Virginia Kelly was unmarried when Willie was conceived and born. This remained a curiosity, because even if it could be proven indisputably, the response would have been so what. Legitimacy is not a requirement for the presidency, “natural-born” is. And Obama’s status remains very much in doubt.
Obama’s eligibility as a natural-born American citizen, or lack thereof, was an issue which was not originally raised by the Republicans, or any of their candidates. Originally his birth was questioned by his fellow Democrats, particularly by Hillary’s disgruntled PUMA legions. Of course Hillary and her true-believer cohorts have dropped the issue after the election in order to bargain for a power chair in the cabinet and a place at the table. The more independent-minded PUMAs continue as an independent force. The Democrat Party even earlier chose to collaborate in suppressing this awkward issue lest it interfere with electoral success. “Don’t ask, don’t tell, we’ve got an entire world to remake.” But was there any basis for questioning the facts about Obama’s birth? For a start, various sources have surfaced, some of them out of Kenya, that Obama was actually born in Kenya. Different sources attribute his birth to a couple of different Kenyan hospitals. Certainly such anecdotal claims are no proof or disproof of anything. Other allegations advanced that he abandoned his putative American citizenship while living in Indonesia. While these claims would clash with each other, either would be incompatible with continued citizenship.
Obama’s non-defense contributed mightily to this dispute. The first defense was to post on the internet “copies” of his birth certificate which were easily proven to be clumsy forgeries, and which are never more advanced as proof. Next came the Hawaiian “live-birth certificate”. While some argument continues amongst the purists about its genuineness, most emphasis is on emphasizing that under the Hawaiian system, such certificates are easily issued, and do no establish natural-born status. In short, Obama has never offered the definitive proof of an actual, legal, American birth certificate. Adding to the confusion, it seems that Obama himself has attributed his place of birth to different Hawaiian hospitals n different occasions.
Why not? Would it not be a simple task to contact the hospital and secure a true copy of the original birth certificate? Thousands of Americans do this every year, hundreds every day, for purposes such as driving licenses, passports, other government forms. Obama and the DNC have already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs and time trying to obfuscate an issue which supposedly could be resolved for under twenty dollars and twenty minutes.
And thus the speculation and theorizing begins. Do they not produce the document because it does not exist? Logically, and by itself, this would not be proof that Obama was not born in America, it would only be lack of proof that he was. It could still be argued that he was actually born in Hawaii but the state suffered from incompetent record-keeping more typical of New Guinea than of the modern world. But this would run into the alternate claims of those Kenyan hospitals, leaving his natural-born status in limbo, with no real birth certificate anywhere. Imagine the late-night TV jokes about our Space Alien president. Another possibility is that the concealed birth certificate contains some personal detail which Obama and his advisors consider so terribly embarrassing as to justify all this concealment.
Though not involved directly in the birth certificate dispute, it is significant that Obama has placed all other information about himself all-limits and classified. Nobody has seen his passport, which might reveal some very interesting details about him and his past. Nor is there any information about his school records, including applications, funding documents, transcripts of course and grades, letters of recommendation, or any details about his selection for the Harvard Law Review, or any work he may have accomplished. Obama is sometimes called President Zero; it is fitting not only for his initial, but even more for his carefully erased past.
A final, more unorthodox theory might be that Obama has and could produce a genuine and totally unquestionable birth certificate proving his Hawaiian birth, but stubbornly refuses to do so from his own perverse intention to force us all to submission. I am above the law and the Constitution; I am accountable neither to God, man nor the Constitution. I command and you are to obey without resistance. To some of us, this could be the most ominous possibility of all.
Now the Army has countered Major cook’s lawsuit by canceling his deployment orders in an attempt so discredit him and simultaneously render moot his demand for a legal hearing on Obama’s presidency. Whether this was an initiative by the Secretary of the Army or a decision by the Defense Secretary, or from even higher up, is unclear. It does seem to avoid a definitive hearing on Obama’s eligibility. That does seem to reinforce suspicions that something is being hidden. It also may drive a wedge into the traditional pro-military community, as it has done with me. Theirs is the ethos: No matter how objectionable, salute and get on with it. “Obedience is my honor”. Sorry – in the Prussian military maybe, but not the American. Yes, discipline und ordnung uber alles. Particularly, as a low-ranking enlisted man, I understood and accepted that. But senior NCOs are expected to show more individual judgment, and Major Cook is a field grade officer, a level at which individual judgment and responsibility are required (perhaps unless they contradict the demiurge). The argument that he should just resign and slink away is the counsel of weakness. In this instance the Major chose to sacrifice his career (and possibly much more) for the sake of his duty as he saw it. There is a long history of loyal senior officers who have chosen obedience over honor. Many of these officers were German, beginning with Generals von Blomberg, Fritsch, and Neurath, succeeded by the even more unfortunate Jodl and Keitel. All came to bad ends. Next I invoke General Gamelin and Marshal Petain who chose Vichy over France.
I must ask of these soldiers scorning Major Cook, what will they do if the Lord Prince Obama orders them to confiscate weapons in America and round up political opponents? The orders will come from the “legitimate” Commander in the Oval Office. Will they fire on American citizens? Their ridicule of Major Cook sadly suggests the affirmative. I will be one of the ones they shoot. People have long worried that the professional military would develop a crevasse between itself and civil society, becoming a separate caste. It appears this process is already much further progressed than I feared. I am going to be repeatedly sick. But I will remember the oath I took- not to a Monkey God, nor to an armed force – regardless of my sentimental ties (1), but to the Constitution.
(1) During the Gallic Campaign, Labienus commander of the Tenth Legion, was Caesar’s favorite subordinate. But during the Civil War, Labienus chose to fight against his old commander.
Unquote
1stCavRVN11B > Harry RileyJuly 17, 2009 at 10:19am
Thank you Rurik. Was trying to put into words what I felt but you sure did a jam up job.
Replies
Quote:
The Dispute Over Major Cook
The controversy about Major Cook is the source of special discomfort for me. Over the last three years or so I have actively confronted the commie creeps of the IVAW, whose attempts to avoid duty tours in Iraq and Afghanistan appear superficially similar. I have veteran friends who have taken stances on both sides of this issue, and I dread that I will lose personal friends over it.
The IVAW have always declared their refusal to deploy is based on “moral” or “political” judgments about the war itself and not the legitimacy of the commander. I cannot recall hearing “Florida 2000” invoked for refusal to deploy. Nor am I aware of any of those deserters and rushing forward to deploy on combat tours now that there is a dark-skinned commander. For them it is entirely a mixture of political and personal reasons.
It appears to be different with Major Cook. He claims that he would wish to deploy for a combat tour, but refuses to do so because he believes the commander to be an illegitimate usurper. It is not the mission, but the commander at issue for him. For the IVAW types, the political issues are a means for avoiding deployment; for Major Cook, avoiding deployment is a means of forcing the issue on the political. Actually a reversal.
At the core of this issue is the legitimacy of the president. As some have pointed out, never before has a president’s citizenship and eligibility been challenged. Completely true. Never before has the eligibility of a president been disputed. Moral, intellectual and personal unfitness are always and invariably disputed and challenged. For all candidates of every party. That is the nature of our system. From 1991 I continuously proclaimed the unfitness of Clinton , but I never once doubted his eligibility, nor did anyone else. Early in his first run evidence was floated that seemed to show that Virginia Kelly was unmarried when Willie was conceived and born. This remained a curiosity, because even if it could be proven indisputably, the response would have been so what. Legitimacy is not a requirement for the presidency, “natural-born” is. And Obama’s status remains very much in doubt.
Obama’s eligibility as a natural-born American citizen, or lack thereof, was an issue which was not originally raised by the Republicans, or any of their candidates. Originally his birth was questioned by his fellow Democrats, particularly by Hillary’s disgruntled PUMA legions. Of course Hillary and her true-believer cohorts have dropped the issue after the election in order to bargain for a power chair in the cabinet and a place at the table. The more independent-minded PUMAs continue as an independent force. The Democrat Party even earlier chose to collaborate in suppressing this awkward issue lest it interfere with electoral success. “Don’t ask, don’t tell, we’ve got an entire world to remake.” But was there any basis for questioning the facts about Obama’s birth? For a start, various sources have surfaced, some of them out of Kenya, that Obama was actually born in Kenya. Different sources attribute his birth to a couple of different Kenyan hospitals. Certainly such anecdotal claims are no proof or disproof of anything. Other allegations advanced that he abandoned his putative American citizenship while living in Indonesia. While these claims would clash with each other, either would be incompatible with continued citizenship.
Obama’s non-defense contributed mightily to this dispute. The first defense was to post on the internet “copies” of his birth certificate which were easily proven to be clumsy forgeries, and which are never more advanced as proof. Next came the Hawaiian “live-birth certificate”. While some argument continues amongst the purists about its genuineness, most emphasis is on emphasizing that under the Hawaiian system, such certificates are easily issued, and do no establish natural-born status. In short, Obama has never offered the definitive proof of an actual, legal, American birth certificate. Adding to the confusion, it seems that Obama himself has attributed his place of birth to different Hawaiian hospitals n different occasions.
Why not? Would it not be a simple task to contact the hospital and secure a true copy of the original birth certificate? Thousands of Americans do this every year, hundreds every day, for purposes such as driving licenses, passports, other government forms. Obama and the DNC have already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs and time trying to obfuscate an issue which supposedly could be resolved for under twenty dollars and twenty minutes.
And thus the speculation and theorizing begins. Do they not produce the document because it does not exist? Logically, and by itself, this would not be proof that Obama was not born in America, it would only be lack of proof that he was. It could still be argued that he was actually born in Hawaii but the state suffered from incompetent record-keeping more typical of New Guinea than of the modern world. But this would run into the alternate claims of those Kenyan hospitals, leaving his natural-born status in limbo, with no real birth certificate anywhere. Imagine the late-night TV jokes about our Space Alien president. Another possibility is that the concealed birth certificate contains some personal detail which Obama and his advisors consider so terribly embarrassing as to justify all this concealment.
Though not involved directly in the birth certificate dispute, it is significant that Obama has placed all other information about himself all-limits and classified. Nobody has seen his passport, which might reveal some very interesting details about him and his past. Nor is there any information about his school records, including applications, funding documents, transcripts of course and grades, letters of recommendation, or any details about his selection for the Harvard Law Review, or any work he may have accomplished. Obama is sometimes called President Zero; it is fitting not only for his initial, but even more for his carefully erased past.
A final, more unorthodox theory might be that Obama has and could produce a genuine and totally unquestionable birth certificate proving his Hawaiian birth, but stubbornly refuses to do so from his own perverse intention to force us all to submission. I am above the law and the Constitution; I am accountable neither to God, man nor the Constitution. I command and you are to obey without resistance. To some of us, this could be the most ominous possibility of all.
Now the Army has countered Major cook’s lawsuit by canceling his deployment orders in an attempt so discredit him and simultaneously render moot his demand for a legal hearing on Obama’s presidency. Whether this was an initiative by the Secretary of the Army or a decision by the Defense Secretary, or from even higher up, is unclear. It does seem to avoid a definitive hearing on Obama’s eligibility. That does seem to reinforce suspicions that something is being hidden. It also may drive a wedge into the traditional pro-military community, as it has done with me. Theirs is the ethos: No matter how objectionable, salute and get on with it. “Obedience is my honor”. Sorry – in the Prussian military maybe, but not the American. Yes, discipline und ordnung uber alles. Particularly, as a low-ranking enlisted man, I understood and accepted that. But senior NCOs are expected to show more individual judgment, and Major Cook is a field grade officer, a level at which individual judgment and responsibility are required (perhaps unless they contradict the demiurge). The argument that he should just resign and slink away is the counsel of weakness. In this instance the Major chose to sacrifice his career (and possibly much more) for the sake of his duty as he saw it. There is a long history of loyal senior officers who have chosen obedience over honor. Many of these officers were German, beginning with Generals von Blomberg, Fritsch, and Neurath, succeeded by the even more unfortunate Jodl and Keitel. All came to bad ends. Next I invoke General Gamelin and Marshal Petain who chose Vichy over France.
I must ask of these soldiers scorning Major Cook, what will they do if the Lord Prince Obama orders them to confiscate weapons in America and round up political opponents? The orders will come from the “legitimate” Commander in the Oval Office. Will they fire on American citizens? Their ridicule of Major Cook sadly suggests the affirmative. I will be one of the ones they shoot. People have long worried that the professional military would develop a crevasse between itself and civil society, becoming a separate caste. It appears this process is already much further progressed than I feared. I am going to be repeatedly sick. But I will remember the oath I took- not to a Monkey God, nor to an armed force – regardless of my sentimental ties (1), but to the Constitution.
(1) During the Gallic Campaign, Labienus commander of the Tenth Legion, was Caesar’s favorite subordinate. But during the Civil War, Labienus chose to fight against his old commander.
Unquote