Months of “not quite public” Obama Administration efforts to negotiate a still-secret pact to ensure that US troops will continue to occupy Afghanistan through at least 2024 came to an end today, with a “not quite public” visit to Afghanistan by President Obama to sign the pact.
The first reports that President Obama had landed in Afghanistan for this A totally unannounced visit were quickly followed by denials from both the White House and the US Embassy in Afghanistan, which condemned the reports as untrue. Later they conceded they were true, and made no attempt to explain why they lied in the first place.
The terms of the deal, which will govern US military operations in the country from the start of 2015 through the end of 2024, have not been made public, and as with President Bush and the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) in Iraq, there was no effort to consult on the long-term pact with Congress.
Interestingly, with the ink now drying on the document and the US officially committed to the occupation of Afghanistan for another decade, officials are continuing to tout 2014 as the “end” of the war. This speaks to how the 2024 date, though openly discussed by the Karzai government in Afghanistan and privately acknowledged as part of the secret pact, has not been publicly presented to the American public. When they will officially spring it on us remains unclear.
The signature comes as the war continues to worsen, and with the release of a new report from the Pentagon which insists that the “strategy is sound” for the conflict. Despite the length of the report, there was little indication of what the strategy is, beyond “stay the course,” and what the goal toward which the strategy is aiming, beyond “staying through 2024.”
He's a usurper, so we can ignore or nullify anything he signs. He does not have the authority of the U.S. government or of the people of the United States.
how dare barak obama usurp the great and noble throne of america
if only we had a legitimate emperor all would be fine
That's a pretty irresponsible and inane comment Paul Bass. It would appear you don't consider the subject of a lawful government very seriously.
and how exactly is obama any less lawful than any past president.
and how is he usurping,
if anyone is being unlawful its the congress in allowing his actions
OK, Paul, I guess you haven't kept up with this issue, so I'll briefly go over the facts.
Every president has to be, among other requirements, a natural born citizen. A natural born citizen is a child born to two U.S. citizen parents on U.S. soil. obama's father was a British subject, so obama is not eligible to be president because he is not a natural born citizen.
Additionally, the birth certificate offered by obama a year ago, as a result of law enforcement forensic examination, has been shown to be fraudulent.
Evidence now appears to be overwhelming that obama is a fraud and a usurper. He was assisted in his usurpation of the presidency by members of both parties and huge amounts of illegal campaign contributions.
Additionally, the 2008 election was the first time in American history that neither major party candidate was a natural born citizen (yes, that means that McCain was also NOT a natural born citizen as his birth certificate shows he was born on Panamanian soil, not on a U.S. military base as has been asserted). The election in 2008 was the most corrupt election we have ever had with fully 35 million too many ballots cast and counted.
So, in summary, there is 1) no evidence that obama was and is eligible to be president, and 2) the election fraud in 2008 was so extensive that it is impossible to determine who actually legally won the 2008 election.
Under ideal circumstances, the 2008 election should be considered null and void, and obama and his marxist minions should be thrown out of office, arrested for fraud and criminal behavior against the American people, and tried in a court of law. We have no acting president at this time. We have a criminal oligarchy and totalitarian regime that does not abide by our federal Constitution nor by our country's laws, which makes all actions made by obama and this government null and void.
This is a legal issue, not a political issue, or a racial issue – it's all about the law.
so who was the last legitimate president?
That's a really great question. There is a paper on public fraud and corruption (by John Sutherland) that suggests we have had crooked elections for decades, and so maybe we are just now learning how bad things have become. Bush was at least a natural born citizen, but there are those who allege that he stole the election because of the Florida delegates, and there could be a lot of truth in the allegation. I just don't know.
I do know that we act like a third world country when it comes to electing our federal presidents. It's sad, and I think the only solution is that the electorate become alert to the ongoing fraud and corruption, get actively involved in the governing process, and actually punish public servants who act in defiance of our laws.
Really, does anyone care about this?
Does it matter on iotta? No it doesn't. It's the discussion for Internet Autists. President elected is president. Basta.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
No.
"lawful government"
A rare Jewell………… Lasts only a microsecond in the dark….. a nanosecond in light ………. Man is corrupt………….
You guys just don't quit, do you? This question regarding eligibility has been settled – in the courts. In all the cases where those filing complaints have been determined to have standing, the courts have all ruled against them. All of them. And if you do some research instead of getting your talking points from Glenn Beck and The Donald (a fine pair of sources, btw) you'd find that the term "natural born citizen" has been argued and ruled upon for many, many years – and it's has generally been settled. Even if you throw out all the BS regarding where he was born and the nationality of his father, the fact that Obama's mother was a US citizen entitles him as a natural born citizen. Again, you can attempt to argue, it is your right, but there has been a preponderance of case history that codifies the point.
So do us a favor, since those who generally comment here are interested in reasoned and generally fact-based discussions, go back to RedState or TownHall where you'll feel more at home. Please. Or you can stay, if you like, and be ignored which is usually how birthers are treated here – because they don't deal in facts.
With all due respect, I am a fraud examiner, and I do research before I make any decisions or statements. The information I presented, although summarized, is factual, and does not represent anyone's talking points. If in fact, you believe I am incorrect in any statement I have made, the onus is on you to do the research. I have done mine, from the legal perspective, from the political perspective, from the historical perspective, and from the documentation perspective.
And, as disingenuous as you appear to be, you full well know that aside from a recent, single, and errant lower court decision in Georgia, there has never been a court case that has addressed and decided on the merits of the case. None.
From your comments about natural born citizenship, it is clear you do not understand the definition. I would suggest that before you get your panties in a twist about this subject matter the next time, that you do some research, and when you challenge someone who has actually researched the topic, you have some specific facts to support your claims. Right now you are coming across as an obama sycophant. Is that what you are trying to do?
The definition is relatively clear: "…one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States, even to alien parents (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements."
As for the court cases, I was not referring to the Obama challenges, such as the Taitz silliness, but was talking about cases questioning the definition of "natural born citizen" which seems to be the underpinning for the birther argument. There are many instances since the founding of the country regarding that point – and here are just a couple:
Naturalization Act of 1790
Naturalization Act of 1795
U.S. Supreme Court in its 1939 decision in Perkins v. Elg
14th Amendment
Murray v. The Charming Betsy (1804)
M'Creery v. Somerville (1824)
A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, William Rawle (1759-1836), the U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania
And Lynch v. Clarke which is commonly accepted to be the decisive ruling.
But at a much lower level, if your argument that Obama isn't eligible to be President, why haven't a preponderance of legal authorities, of all political persuasions – hell, what about all the lawyers who are in Congress? – why haven't they stepped forward and, since there doesn't seem to be any question in the birther mind, made their case? If all the lawyers in Congress and all the legal experts from all those Law Schools are silent, then, well, why?
Answer that and we can move forward. Otherwise, in my mind, your argument remains without merit.
And even tho the question adds nothing to the point of the discussion except change the subject, I am not an Obama sycophant, supporter, voter, admirer – take your pick.
You left out Minor v. Happersett. Per Mario Apuzzo:
"… the last time the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the matter as to what is a “natural born Citizen” was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 (1875) (decided after the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868 and holding that "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners"). What Minor said about a “natural born Citizen” was confirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (acknowledging and confirming Minor’s American common law definition of a “natural-born citizen” but adding based on the English common law that since “‘[t]he child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle [birth in the country]’” (bracketed information supplied), a child born in the United States to domiciled alien parents was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States”). This American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” has never been changed, not even by the Fourteenth Amendment (only uses the clause "citizen of the United States" and does not mention "natural born Citizen") or Wong Kim Ark, and therefore still prevails today. Both those U.S. Supreme Court cases define a "natural born Citizen" as a child born in a country to parents who are citizens of that country."
Why hasn't anyone stepped out? Perhaps Doug Casey has the answer in this article:
http://www.caseyresearch.com/articles/ascendence-…
BTW, I have studied this topic for four years and I really don't give a rip if you think my arguments are with merit or not. I'm comfortable in my understanding of the huge fraud and corruption inside the federal government and in the two political parties, and in the definition of natural born citizen.
Who the hell do you think is making him sign this?
Why does this article say 2024 when in his speech he said 2014? http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/05/01/obama-d…
Who cares? Do the Taliban or Afghan people care what those two bozos sign? Our true departure date will have nothing to do with secret or open deals between Karzai and Obama. If history is any indication, the Afghans may not permit us to leave – we may just have to fight our way out, and will not be permitted to take our toys with us. The agreement is childish and irrelevant and probably has much to do with American elections.
How much would that cost the working man and women in America, 24 billion dollars a year, 12 billion dollars a year, how much..? Hamid Karzi finnaly solde Afghanistan to the highest bidder, so now that everything is signed by Obama and Hamid Karzi, Afghanistan has become a legalized entity for US to occupy. Obama did promissed that he will end the occupation when he was runing four years ago…, among other thing…? then again lying is part of the government job, otherwise there wouldent be any government who falsifies the wording democracy – democratic, to a deal making occupation – machinery around the world.
"The Enabling Act — when used ruthlessly and with authority — virtually assured that Hitler could thereafter constitutionally exercise dictatorial power without legal objection." Wikipedia…
Neocons = Nazis …. (The abused & kin become the abusers)
Bush Election= Hitler Election
911 = Reichstad Fire
Patriot Act = Enabling Act
Afghanistan & Iraq = Poland *& Czechoslovakia
NDAA ss1031 = Berlin Laws
Bush Adm. = Forth Reich
Obama Adm. = Fifth Reich
All while the stupid American public says "Support the troops! America America America!"
There is evidence for why the U.S. is there, but it is not talked about very much. Lots of cover up.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2012/05/secret-afgh…
I'm a little unclear as well. So it will take until 2024…for what again?
Are there still a few insurgents and children of insurgents left who don't know what we're doing there either?
I would have thought by now the Army would have killed them all, and the ones they spared, they killed their women, kids and livestock as a warning…no more killing of coalition, Afghan Army or foreign collaborators – accept our carpet of peace or we will bury you beneath a goatskin of bombs or something?
this gives them time to lock up all the mineral rights.
The fact obomba had to sneak into the country during the dead of nite after 11 years of occupation says it all. And he has the gonads to obligate us thru 2024? Couldn't you just puke?
Progressives are hailing and fapping. So it must be good…
http://thinkprogress.org/progress-report/presiden…
"President Obama Seeks The Right Balance In Afghanistan"
Striking the Chord Between Ending the War and Offering Long-Term Support
Yesterday, President Barack Obama signed a Strategic Partnership Agreement with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, outlining a plan to withdraw combat troops from Afghanistan by 2014 and to continue aiding the Afghan government through 2024. The agreement assures the Afghan people of long-term support during a time of transition, sending a clear message that the U.S. is committed to more than just military security — in fact, the agreement sets up a new bilateral commission to address corruption, political reform, women’s rights, and human rights abuses in the country [they say nothing about adressing haemorroids and other scourges of humanity]. It also contains a clause pledging that the U.S. will not attack another country from its bases within Afghanistan [oh yeah?]
Obama detailed the points of the agreement in an address to the nation from Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan last night. In his remarks, Obama acknowledged that the American public has grown weary of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, pledging to both end the longstanding U.S. involvement and remain committed to building a lasting infrastructure in the region. This was not a “mission accomplished” speech; instead, Obama noted that there will be “difficult days ahead” and that the “enormous sacrifices of our men and women are not over,” balancing the need to bring troops home with the need to set up political, economic, and military stability in Afghanistan before declaring an end to the war [notice the fakery of an summoning up some kind of trade-off that needs to be expertly handled]
George W. Bush’s war in Iraq — which President Obama opposed from the beginning and eventually brought to an end [I thought the Iraqi kicked him out?] — drained valuable energy and resources from Afghanistan, the country Obama has always considered to be the real priority [oh yeah?]. After over ten years of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan, which marks it as the longest war in U.S. history, the newly-signed strategic partnership agreement now offers a way forward amid murky waters. A review of some political challenges that currently face the country:
Blah blah blah the chocolate ration will be augmented by a full 20%…
2024? Ha ha ha! Delusions of Empire. This sh*t doesn't have till 2014 much less 2024. Although, maybe they've been listening to Johan Galtung that gave the final date of collapse as 2025. But even though he was right on the money with Russia, I think he over estimated that date with this runaway train.