‘Birther’ Stefan Cook vs. Obama
The Army revoked the Afghanistan deployment orders for Army reservist Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, the plaintiff in a lawsuit arguing that President Obama has no authority to send him to war because, he believes, Obama is not a “natural-born citizen” and thus not eligible to be president. (Columbus, Ga., Ledger-Enquirer) Cook’s lawyer, leading “birther” Orly Taitz, said the Army’s move is proof that Obama was not born in Hawaii. (Military.com)
What the commentators said
This is a “bombshell”—the military isn’t backing Obama’s legitimacy as commander-in-chief, said Chelsea Schilling and Joe Kovacs in WorldNetDaily. If Obama wants to quash this growing controversy, all he has to do is release his “true ‘long-form’ birth certificate,” as Cook requested. Until then, Cook has a point: It would be illegal for him to follow an illegitimate president’s orders.
This is a “massive scam,” and Cook will get nailed for it, said Doug Mataconis in Below the Beltway. He claims that Obama “forced” him to deploy, but it turns out he volunteered to go to Afghanistan in May, then sued to get out of it in July, when he could have just asked. Why? He’s a “birther” wingnut who wanted standing to sue Obama over the birth certificate.
It’s bad enough that Cook is shamefully “crossing the boundary between duty and personal politics,” said Greg Skilling in Examiner.com. But he’s also putting U.S. soldiers at risk by advancing the “unfounded” argument that they are “war criminals” for following an illegitimate president. The birthers’ claims have been soundly debunked, and military officers only get to overturn the Electoral College in dictatorships.
Stefan Cook is a “criminal,” but Obama isn’t helping by adding to the “paranoia of the birthers,” said Jonn Lilyea in This Ain’t Hell. It’s understandable that the Army, and the Obama administration, want to be free of that “crackpot” Taitz, but they must know how bad it looks to revoke Cook’s deployment.