The Liberty Tree Lantern

By Pat Shannan

American Free Press

The question of Barack Obama’s birth status and challenges thereof reached a new level when U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, set to deploy to Afghanistan from Fort Benning, Ga., decided he shouldn’t have to go until his alleged commander-in-chief proves the legitimacy of his occupation of the White House. This began yet another bizarre chain of events that has resulted once more in the government’s continued refusal to address the issue at any level.

First, the Columbus (Ga.) Ledger-Enquirer reported that Maj. Cook was refusing his deployment orders to report for duty because Barack Obama is not the lawful commander-in-chief. The newspaper than parroted the party line assertion that Obama was actually born in Hawaii in 1961, two years after it became a state, thereby suggesting that Maj. Cook’s charges were ridiculous. However, the newspaper, in typical mainstream media fashion, neglected to mention that Obama has never answered the numerous legal cases demanding he prove his claim is a fact.

A hearing in federal court was booked for July 16, but then cancelled on the day before when the Army backtracked and declared that Maj. Cook would not be deployed to Afghanistan after all, displaying once again the government’s reluctance to face the facts of the case. However, Cook learned later the same day that someone from the Department of Defense had pressured his civilian boss into firing him.

In June, AFP reported the similar story of the Naval Lt. Commander Walter Fitzpatrick, who took a stand in March of this year. He filed criminal charges of treason against Obama in federal court in Knoxville but is yet to have the court address it. Instead, the U.S. attorney reported to his Washington superiors at the DOJ that Fitzpatrick was a “terrorist.” California-based attorney Orly Taitz, who has handled various other suits against Obama, filed a 20-page document with the U. S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia asking the court to consider granting his client’s request, based upon Maj. Cook’s belief that Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States.

Cook further stated in his brief that he “would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the United States under this president’s command. . . . simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by the faithful execution of these duties.”

Cook, a reservist, received the orders mobilizing him to active duty on June 9, and a hearing to discuss Cook’s requests was to take place in federal court in Columbus on July 16, but when the Army rescinded his orders, the hearing was rendered moot.

“We won! We won before we even arrived,” attorney Orly Taitz said with excitement. “It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate—and they can’t fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order. No explanation, no reasons, just revoked.”

Cook added, “[If Obama is not there lawfully] any order coming out of the presidency or his chain of command is illegal. Should I deploy, I would essentially be following an illegal order. If I happened to be captured by the enemy in a foreign land, I would not be privy to the Geneva Convention protections,” he said.

“That and the fact the individual who is occupying the White House has not been entirely truthful with anybody,” he said. “Every time anyone has made an inquiry, it has been either cast aside, it has been maligned, it has been laughed at or just dismissed summarily without further investigation.”

He said he would be prepared for a backlash against him as a military officer, since members of the military swear to uphold and follow their orders. However, he noted that following an illegal order would be just as bad as failing to follow a legal order. Meanwhile, retired Maj. Gen. Carroll Dean Childers and active U.S. Air Force reservist Lt. Col. David Earl Graeff have joined the suit “because it is a matter of unparalleled public interest and importance and because it is clearly a matter arising from issues of a recurring nature that will escape review unless the court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction.”

Before news of the order being revoked was reported, MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann called Cook a “jackass” and Taitz a “conwoman,” as he labeled both of them the “worst persons in the world.” He verbally flogged the soldier as “an embarrassment to all those who have served without cowardice,” as if conscientious objection were the issue.

Over the past year, when reporters from the major media weren’t ignoring this birth issue totally, they were belittling it with attempted character assassination, such as with Olbermann, while turning a blind eye to the most important factor, the law.

Taitz may get the last laugh, however. In her oldest case—that of former presidential candidate Alan Keyes filed more than a year ago—she has been promised by a federal judge in California that her case will be “heard on the merits” and “nothing will be dismissed on procedural issues.” Judge David Carter is a former Marine who not only realizes the importance of a president being constitutionally qualified but has publicly stated that if Obama is not qualified, “he needs to leave the White House.