Showing posts with label admiral mullen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label admiral mullen. Show all posts

Sunday, July 12, 2009

This Week: Adm Mullen re: Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

Another missing post

Lt Choi/Lt Col Fehrenbach/DADT/posts/interviews

May 25, 2009

Admiral Mullen was on This Week with George Stephanopoulos yesterday and they got around to discussing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. It’s perfectly clear from Adm Mullen’s words, demeanor and body language that he is going through the motions and that nothing is happening any time soon. And it appears he, personally, does not want to change anything. He speaks of the stress the force is under and says nothing about discharging a West Point Grad with two combat tours in Iraq who is fluent in Arabic and willing to do a third.

How is his discharge not adding to the stress – especially in his unit?

And if they discharge a decorated fighter pilot with 88 combat missions under his belt?

What he is saying is inherently deceitful. Wonder if he was like that to begin with or barry’s wearing off on him? He reminds me of Rumsfield.

Most telling words: That it’s his intent at some point in time to ask Congress to change this law.

Then he mentions how it would take time to implement once it became law. barry has no intent on doing anything but leaving it to Congress.

TRANSCRIPT

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me talk about the issues of gays in the military. The president has told you that he wants to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy so that gays and lesbians can serve openly in the military. And the Pentagon said this week that you personally, along with Secretary Gates, are working to address the challenges associated with implementing the president’s commitment. What exactly are you doing? And what exactly are you worried about?

MULLEN: The president has made his strategic intent very clear. That it’s his intent at some point in time to ask Congress to change this law. I think it’s important to also know that this is the law, this isn’t a policy. And for the rules to change, a law has to be changed.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And there’s legislation introduced in the Congress.

MULLEN: And there is. Exactly. And so I’ve had discussions with the Joint Chiefs about this. I’ve done certainly a lot of internal, immediate staff discussions about what the issues would be and how we…

STEPHANOPOULOS: What are they? What are the challenges?

MULLEN: Well, it’s my job as the senior military adviser to provide best advice, best military advice for the president. And what I owe him is an objective assessment of what these changes would be. What they might impact on. And there could be speculation about what that might be, but my goal would be to achieve an objective assessment of the impact, if any, of this kind of change.

How long is that going to take in military time? 3 years?

In addition, you know, I would need some time for a force that’s under a great deal of stress – we’re in our sixth year of fighting two wars — to look at if this change occurs, to look at implementing it in a very deliberate, measured way.

AKA a long time.

And what I also owe the president, and I owe the men and women in uniform, is an implementation plan to achieve this based on a timeline that would be set, obviously, after the law is changed.

barry has no intention of doing anything before the law is changed and he has the intent – but has not done so — to ask Congress “at some point” to change the law. Translation: when it becomes politically expedient – when the damage done by doing nothing is worse than his panderment to Rick Warrens et al. Folks are starting to see barry has no spine and that his words rarely match his actions–if he acts at all.

STEPHANOPOULOS: One of your predecessors, General John Shalikashvili, who was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs back in the early ’90s, has said he has second thoughts on this whole issue now. He was against opening up service to the gays and lesbians then. Now he’s written, “I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces. Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.”

Is he right?

MULLEN: He’s certainly entitled to his own personal opinion. And certainly, I have the greatest respect for him. There are also lots of retired generals and admirals on the other side.

STEPHANOPOULOS: What’s your opinion?

MULLEN: And what I would hope to do in this, George, again, given the strategic intent of the president, is to avoid a polarizing debate that puts a force that’s very significantly under stress in the middle. And to get this, get to this, assuming the law is going to change, and, again, a measured, deliberate way. And that, as the senior military leader, is what I consider my principal responsibility.

The good Admiral does not answer the question and says “George” in the same fashion Br Gen Walsh said “Ma’am” to Sen Boxer. Trying to remind “George” of his rank – even though he is in George’s house.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Measured, deliberate way. So it sounds like if the Congress calls you up to testify in this, you’re going to say now is not the time to repeal?

MULLEN: No, I actually — I’m going to talk to the process that we have in this country, which is we follow the law, and if the law changes, we’ll comply. There’s absolutely no question about that.

And what are the chances of it being passed if barry says nothing? He basically says he doesn’t seeing it changing.

————————-

STEPHANOPOULOS: We have a couple of minutes left. I want to ask you about working with President Obama as the commander in chief. You’ve been doing it for about four months now, a little bit more than four months. What have you learned about the president as commander in chief? And is he performing as you expected?

MULLEN: It’s very rare with any kind of major issue that the president doesn’t initially ask, OK, where are we going here? What’s our end stake? And then developing a strategic view of how to get there and the major pieces with respect to that. That he is developing policies and policy objectives that the military can support, and the policy and the strategy are very clear.

And I’m not a policy and a strategy guy. I’m — you know, the military basically supports what the president wants, the decisions that he makes. And he has done that, he has done that in Iraq, he has done that in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. And I find that to be — to be a method that gives the military the kind of focus it needs for where we’re going.

By deferring to the people in the room and then deciding.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Has he surprised you in any way?

MULLEN: No, not really. I mean, I met him before the — I think a week or so after he was elected. We had very frank conversations about our positions on various issues, in terms of how we saw things. He was very clear about what he wants to do.

He’s a very bright, focused individual. He takes a diversity of opinion, and then he is — he is as every president is, you know, he knows he has to make decisions. He has made them, he has made hard ones, and I think he will continue to do so.

After listening to people who know what they’re talking about.

Dear Admiral Mullen:

Do you think barry is capable of making a decision of global import in 30 seconds without any advisors nearby?

Friday, April 24, 2009

Taitz: Letter to the General Counsel of Admiral Mullen By mattie14

April 23, 2009

I can’t believe this. A legal document sent from Orly Taitz actually looks and sounds like a legal document - proofread with correct verb tenses, unemotional text, a concise summary and proper spacing. Kudos to the preparer of the letter. Now if they could organize the Dossiers. They are all different font and colors and have areas of white space that seems haphazard and sloppy. There should be a short summary of the evidence preceding the actual documents.

If one thinks about what these documents represent it’s clear why they need to be impeccable.

ORLY TAITZ WEBSITE

Letter to the General Counsel of Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

April 22nd, 2009
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
26302 La Paz ste 211
Mission Viejo CA92691
Phone 949-683-5411
Fax 949-586-2082

OrlyTaitzESQ.com
dr_taitz@yahoo.com

April 21, 2009

Attn: Captain James Crawford
Legal Counsel for Admiral Mullen
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Pentagon
Room 2D 938
Washington DC 20318-9999
Phone 703-697-1137

Dear Captain Crawford:

Enclosed are follow-up documents to our prior communication.

If you recall, I currently represent 160 plaintiffs, who include members of the US military with ranks as high as Major General. Some of these plaintiffs are also current State Representatives in their respective state legislatures.

This packet includes the following documents:

1. Verified Quo Warranto Complaint, which was filed by these US military plaintiffs and served on Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, demanding that Quo Warranto proceedings be instituted to prove that Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama is eligible for the position of the US President.

1. Verified Quo Warranto Complaint served on US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeffrey Taylor, demanding commencement of Quo Warranto proceedings for Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama to prove his eligibility for the position of the US President.

1. Dossiers 1 – 6, forwarded to US Attorney General Eric Holder, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Director of the Secret Service Mark Sullivan, and Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as to all of the Supreme Court associate justices. The dossiers include the following items:

a. Statement of federal agent Steven Coffman, presenting evidence that Barack Hussein Obama’s Selective Service certificate was forged and backdated. This evidence shows that Obama’s Selective Service certificate was prepared in 2008 and backdated to appear as if it was prepared in 1980. Failure to fill out a timely certification for selective service makes one ineligible for work in the executive branch of the US government, which understandably includes the presidency as the top position in the government.

b. Statement of Sandra Ramsey Lines, a forensic document examiner, explaining why the Certification of Live Birth, which was posted by Barack Obama on the internet, cannot be considered to be a genuine document and the reasons for the need to review the original vault copy of this document.

c. Statement of Jorje Baro, licensed private investigator, showing evidence of forgery in the Certification of Live Birth, which was posted on the internet by Barack Hussein Obama.

d. Statement of Neil Sankey, a licensed private investigator, identifying 100 addresses, located all over the US, for Barack and Michelle Obama. Since most of these addresses are connected to different social security numbers, this may constitute evidence of identity theft, social security fraud, tax evasion fraud, campaign contributions fraud, charitable organizations fraud and other related crimes.

e. School registration records from Indonesia showing that Barack Obama was legally registered under the name of Barry Soetoro (last name of his stepfather).

f. Barack Obama’s Illinois state bar registration, which he had to fill out in order to be licensed as an attorney in Illinois. In this document, Mr. Obama swears under oath that he did not have and never had any other prior names. In light of the Indonesian school registration records, itemized in 3 (e) above, this bar registration is evidence that Mr. Obama committed perjury.

g. Database of 130 current job positions for Barack H Obama, Barry Obama and Michelle Obama, which may be evidence of campaign contributions fraud, where contributions over the allowable amounts were documented as job positions. This may account for $300 million in unexplained campaign contributions.

h. Evidence of a cyber space campaign of character assassination, harassment and intimidations against my client, active duty officer Scott Easterling, and myself, as well as other cyber crimes.

As of today’s date, there has been no response to the receipt of these documents from Mr. Mueller, Mr. Sullivan or Mr. Taylor. A verbal response from the Justice Department was received, indicating that these documents were forwarded to Solicitor General Elena Kagan. The Department of Justice also sent another response, indicating that these documents were sent to its criminal division.

Meanwhile hundreds of US military personnel have filed Article 138 grievances under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, seeking verification of Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility for the position of Commander-in-Chief. These grievances are based on the fact that Barack Obama has held a foreign citizenship status from birth, which makes him ineligible to comply with the Natural Born Citizen requirement in Article II, Section 1 [5] of the US Constitution, regardless of the actual physical location of his birth. Although Mr. Obama has consistently refused to produce a long form copy of his birth certificate to prove his claims that he was born in Hawaii, that document is basically irrelevant. Mr. Obama is Constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of US President because his parents conveyed dual US/UK citizenship to him at birth. Any foreign citizenship automatically eradicates a “natural born” status. His father’s United Kingdom citizenship was automatically conferred on all of his father’s children, including Barack Hussein Obama, at the moment of birth. Mr. Obama has openly acknowledged that he held this dual citizenship and that he became a citizen of Kenya at age two, when Kenya gained its independence from the UK. At approximately age 5, Mr. Obama became a citizen of Indonesia and his legal name was changed to Barry Soetoro. There is no evidence that his name was ever legally changed after that point in time.

When Scott Easterling, one of the military officers who instituted the Quo Warranto action, first questioned Mr. Obama’s eligibility, an investigation was launched against Lt. Easterling instead of investigating the questions surrounding Mr. Obama’s eligibility. Article 138 of the UCMJ gives each and every member of the US military the right to obtain a resolution for his grievances against a commanding officer without any negative repercussions to himself. Please provide a speedy response to the UCMJ Article 138 investigation request to verify Barack Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to be a US president.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Yours very truly,
Orly Taitz