Posted on 07/29/2010 1:01:40 AM PDT by rxsid
The us state dept in response to a FOIA in November 2008 says they found six documents responsive to the request and enclosed them. Then they say
“We did not locate a 1965 passport application referenced in an application for amendment of passport that is included in the released documents. Many passport applications and other non-vital records from that period were destroyed during the 1980’s in accordance with guidance from the General Services Administration.
So they don’t say for sure they were destroyed, just they can’t find them..but the rest of her file is intact? Methinks someone pulled her earlier records not that they were destroyed. Why destroy only earlier records and not the one referring to 1965? They would have been in the same file..They took more than a year and a half to come up with this.
I was sitting on the fence, but now I am inclined to believe Obama may well have been born in Kenya, there is no logical or reasonable explanation fot the time delay then failure to provide these records that are of National Interest. Where there is smoke there is fire.
For all you Obots, this is not good news for you it appears to be a massive coverup. Go ahead explain how just some records are lost or destroyed and while you are at it explain the tooth fairy. If Obamas mama did not apply for a passport in 1959/60/61 they would have found her 1965 application showing it was her first application. If a passport was issued July 1960, it would be valid for 3 years and on renewal valid for another 2 years to July 1965. She could have also gotten a passport in 1961 and not renewed it gotten a new one in 1965. It stinks to High Heaven
in the first 4 pages of the FOIA release, page 4 shows Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) crossed out as “amend to exclude/include children”. This should lay to rest the idea that Barack had been adopted. However what does the annotation mean? A nick name?
That is apparently an Indonesian last name..it may be he was adopted and became an Indonesian citizen thus he was not put on her passport...during that time period children up to about age 8 were put on their mothers passports...
Some of Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama Soetoro’s Passport Application Records Are Released due to Strunk FOIA Filing
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/07/some-of-stanley-ann-dunham-obama.html
I’ve never heard of Lt. Harris. Thus, I have no opinion on why he/she was shot.
There is no “Lt.” Harris. The identity thief in question was named Leiutenant Quarles Harris, Jr. His first name was “Leiutenant,” and thus it’s completely wrong
Incredibly, his parents named him “Leiutenant” (spelled just like that)
So if he had been in the Army he might have been “Lt. Leiutenant”.
He looked into OBambi’s passport records, I think, and soon after was shot sitting in front of a DC church, in his car, at midnight.
Unsolved.
Guts and integrity do not seem to be mutually compatible...
They think Barack Obama is the tooth fairy. I'm waiting for the Obot clowns here to attempt to explain it away. You certainly did not need a passport to travel to Hawaii and back to Washington state or the mainland United States as Stanley Ann did in 1961.
Gee Obots, why did Stanley Ann have a passport prior to 1965?
No one ordered Lakin to Iran to fight the mullahs. His commanding officer or commanding general ordered him to a preexisting theater of combat. That theater of combat is controlled by a unified combatant commander. That combatant commander is authorized - by federal statute and DoD directives - to rotate troops into and out of the theater of combat.
This is why Barack Obama and his eligibility to hold his office is immaterial and irrelevant to the military court. As such, no discussion about Obama's will be entertained at trial, and no discovery will be granted about any aspect of Obama's presidency.
So could Stanley McChrystal have just sent the 60,000 troops he wanted without a presidential directive to increase the troop level? Why or why not?
Legally? Yes - so long as McChrystal had the additional forces at his disposal in his unified combatant command, which I'm sure he did, and many more. McChrystal was the unified combatant commander. He as full operational control of the troops attached to his command, both in the theater and in garrison. Where did that authorization come from? It came from the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) passed in 2001. This authorization predates Obama. With or without Obama, McChrystal has operational control until such time that he's either replaced, or he's ordered to cease hostilities.
But, as a practically matter, no. Just like for all practical purposes, it would have been impossible for Bush to have sent the additional troops to Iraq absent at least minimal support from Congress, although it's clearly within the President's prerogative as CiC to send troops virtually anywhere - at least for short periods of time. Why is that? Because Congress controls the power of the purse strings. So, while the President is the CiC, the Congress feeds, clothes, arms and pays those troops. Without support of Congress, there is no war and there are no additional troops, in any theater.
Obama, Gates or McChrystal could have ordered the deployment, but Congress wouldn't have to pay for it, ergo there would be no deployment - such is the net effect of the there separate, but equal branches of government.
Was McChrystal in that position under Bush?
I don't know. But, it's not material. Gates certainly was. McChrystal, and all the CCDRs report directly to Gates. An officers authority to issue orders does not flow from the President, it flows from Congress vis-a-vis 10 USC Part II. As such, any constitutional infirmity about a sitting president has no bearing on the legal authority of subordinate officers to issue orders, so long as those orders are within the prescribed statutory authority of the officer's command.
Gates and McChrystal were clearly within their statutory authority.
So it was Gates and not McChrystal who had the authority to provide 60,000 more troops to Afghanistan if they wanted, without a presidential directive?
This isn't that complicated. You're either being intentionally argumentative, or obtuse. Either way, I'm not amused.
Gates is the SecDef. He has, by virtue of Senate confirmation and statutory law, the authority to issue directives to his CCDRs. The CCDR's, by virtue of Senate confirmation and statutory law, have the authority to order troops into and out of their theater of command, so long as they have the requisite number of troops available to them in their command. It's that simple.
If I am an officer, and you are my subordinate, my orders to you enjoy the full force of law (provided I have statutory or administrative authority to issue such orders, and they are not facially criminal orders nor outside the scope of service), irrespective of my superior's infirmity to hold his office or command.
Whatever Barack Obama's alleged constitutional infirmity may or may not be to hold his office, that infirmity has NOTHING to do with LTC Lakin's deployment order. Legally speaking, it could not be any simpler which is all the more reason to believe that Lakin's civilian defense counsel is incompetent.
When was Gates confirmed for his current position, and who nominated him for the position he now holds?
It doesn't matter. The Senate confirmed. He fully enjoys the authority of his office, irrespective of Obama's alleged infirmity. Why is this too difficult for your to understand.
Look up the de facto officer doctrine.
Only a president who has the presidential powers can nominate cabinet members such as the Secretary of Defense. See Article II, Section 2.
If Obama cannot have the presidential powers then he cannot nominate a Sec Def. Congress can’t confirm a nominee who has not been Constitutionally nominated, and the only person the Consittution authorizes to nominate a Sec Def any time from Jan 20, 2009 and onward is Joe Biden, the VP elect at the time that Obama failed to qualify.
Right, it's a good thing Obama is the President then, huh?
Listen, Lakin's court-martial starts on Friday. Soon, his trial will be over, he'll be convicted, sentenced and dismissed from service. You can watch the trial. Let me know if the military judge comes to ANY different conclusion than I've just spelled out. I wouldn't hold your breath.
The de facto officer doctrine has nothing to do with the charge against Lakin. Lakin is accused of disobeying a LAWFUL order. If they want to change that to disobeying an unlawful order that he is required to follow anyway because of the de facto officer doctrine, they need to file new charges.
Every person has the right to defend himself against what he is actually charged with. Don’t change the subject.
Lakin may have violated the de facto officer doctrine. But he did NOT disobey a lawful order, which is what he is accused of.
Whose authority are you citing to say that the deployment of additional troops is lawful? Congress gave the authority to use force to the president. Are you saying that the authority now is because GW Bush authorized the use of force? Because Joe Biden is the man the Constitution grants the presidential powers to, and he has never authorized force or nominated a Secretary of Defense who could appoint McChrystal or anybody else to the Afghanistan command.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.