Hollister v Soetoro DISMISSED (US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA - 3/5/09)

scribd ^ | 3/5/2009 | rxisd

[DJ MacWoW]

If anyone needed more proof that you are a lefty, you just supplied it.

Obama's Lost Annenberg Years Coming to Light

Add in the fact that former Weatherman and admitted terrorist William Ayers (whom Obama described in the Philadelphia debate as merely a "neighbor") was head of the operating arm of the CAC, working with Obama on distributing scores of millions of dollars to grantees in the wards of the city, and you have a topic that the Obama campaign wishes to avoid at all costs.

Ayers and Obama crossed paths on boards, records show

For seven years, Ayers and Obama -- among many others -- worked on funding for education projects, including some projects advocated by Ayers.

Obama-Ayers link involved Annenberg grant (Hussein Obomber & terrorist also on Woods board)

[DJ MacWoW]

Nope. But you can keep saying it.

[DJ MacWoW]

We have several lefty trolls on these threads.

[DJ MacWoW]

From the fact that the birth certificates people have been claiming are McCain's show him to have been born someplace other than where the birth certificate shown to the Washington Post reporter says he was born.

Unadulterated mud. You have NO way of knowing what the reporter had seen.

No less reliable as to place of birth than the long form.

It is not as reliable as a long form BC which Obama refuses to release. It lacks hospital info, doctor attending birth etc. A Colb has nothing.

[Michael Michael]

You are defending Obama.

Nothing I've said has had anything specifically to do with Obama.

Back during the Dan Rather/TANG documents brouhaha, which I also found interesting enough to bother posting about (over on LGF), I checked out the documents, considered the evidence, did some analysis of my own, and concluded that the documents were forgeries.

I was no more defending Bush back then than I'm defending Obama now. Whether the TANG documents were forgeries, or whether Obama's certificate is a forgery, or he's a natural born citizen, etc., has nothing inherently to do with Bush or Obama as individuals. Place any other individual in the same situation and the situation remains the same.

Problem here is that some people can't seem to separate the person from the situation and let their emotional feelings about the individual cloud their perspective of the situation.

You must have an opinion or idea as to why he is hiding his long form BC.

I can certainly come up with some plausible scenarios, but I just don't see the point in it. Obama's reasons are his reasons, regardless of what anyone else's idea or opinion is, unless one has been privy to Obama's actual reasons.

[Michael Michael]

We may be a representative republic but we also have the right to be heard.

Sure. But you don't have a right to a response.

[this is my country]

Well I can tell you, as someone who has been on both sides of the interview process, I've never once brought my college diplomas with me and I've never been asked to produce them. Companies check that on their own. They do their own work and if they find out that an applicant has lied to them then they take the necessary actions. I've seen people fired because they lied about their degrees and I assume my employers in the past have checked on my two degrees and found them to be in order. So take a hint from your analogy. Don't depend on Obama to do your work for you. Instead go dig proof up on your own.

That was a good analogy nufsed brought up, but your reply above was a pompous joke. I understand you are trying to defend your position but your answer is not worthy of the provocative supposition proposed by nufsed and your answer on this matter was weak.

[Michael Michael]

The Hawaii Department of Health web site says: “The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii.”

I'm well aware of what it says.

But Obama wasn't issued a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. Such certificates were issued only to those one year old or older, as you can plainly see in the words you quote.

Obama's birth was registered four days after his birth.

Also, Hawaii allows residents to register foreign-born infants as being born in Hawaii: Hawaiian Law §338-17.8 says:

You really should pay attention to previous posts.

It's already been pointed out that 338-17.8 didn't exist until 1982.

And again, Obama's birth was registered in 1961.

[DJ MacWoW]

Place any other individual in the same situation and the situation remains the same.

This is a side issue. The issue at hand is why Obama will not prove eligibility.

[MilspecRob]

ROTFLMAO

[Michael Michael]

Unadulterated mud. You have NO way of knowing what the reporter had seen.

Sure we do. The reporter reported what he saw.

But a senior campaign official showed me a copy of his birth certificate issued by the "family hospital" in the Coco Solo submarine base.

Do you see anything on the certificates provided by Lamb that says Coco Solo Naval Air Station? No. The Lamb documents say Colon Hospital, Colon, Panama.

The birth certificate was signed by Captain W. L. Irvine.

Do you see any signature by a Captain W. L. Irvine on any of the certificates provided by Lamb? No.

And again, the certificates provided by Lamb were disputed by McCain's lawyers in Hollander's eligibility case against McCain.

Hollander has also provided a copy of McCain’s birth certificate, which lists his place of birth as Colón. The defendants dispute this theory...

The copy of McCain's birth certificate that was provided by Hollander were the copies that were provided by Lamb. And the defendants, which included McCain, dispute it.

So again, are you calling McCain a liar?

It is not as reliable as a long form BC which Obama refuses to release. It lacks hospital info, doctor attending birth etc.

It establishes place of birth, which is given as Honolulu, Hawaii. And since there hasn't been a single shred of credible evidence that he was born anyplace other than Hawaii, I've no reason to suspect he was born anyplace else.

[Michael Michael]

The issue at hand is why Obama will not prove eligibility.

Try this one:

Because nothing in the Constitution, or federal statute requires that he prove his eligibility nor who it would be proved to even if it were required. Nor has any court or officer or agency of the federal government requested him to do so.

[DJ MacWoW]

The people have an absolute right to demand proof of eligibility for a President. Read the First Amendment again a to whether the government has to answer.

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press." Thomas Jefferson

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783

Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories.
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 14, 1781

I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Charles Jarvis, September 28, 1820

[DJ MacWoW]

You claimed that the reporter did not see David Lamb’s document. You have no way of knowing that.

[Michael Michael]

You claimed that the reporter did not see David Lamb’s document.

I said what the reporter described of the birth certificate that was shown to him by a McCain campaign official wasn't the certificate shown in Lamb's documents.

What exactly are you trying to say anyway? Are you trying to say McCain was a liar? And that the documents provided by Lamb really are McCain's birth certificate and that the certificate shown to the reporter by the McCain campaign official was a forgery?

You keep yammering on here but it's entirely unclear just what it is you're trying to say with regard to McCain's birth certificate.

[Michael Michael]

The people have an absolute right to demand proof of eligibility for a President.

I never said that they didn't. But they haven't any right to receive it.

If they don't like that the proof they demanded wasn't provided to them, they're perfectly free not to vote for that candidate.

[DJ MacWoW]

You can run in circles but I am not stupid enough to follow.

In post 266 you stated: He didn't see what people have been claiming is McCain's birth certificate. in reference to the WaPo reporter.

In post 286 I questioned where you had gotten that statement.

In post 316 you tried to muddy the waters by blaming others for the statement: From the fact that the birth certificates people have been claiming are McCain's show him to have been born someplace other than where the birth certificate shown to the Washington Post reporter says he was born.

In post 324 I told you that you were using mud to obscure what you had said.

You have since continued to make assumptions and muddy the original statement by you and my subsequent question.

So you keep trying to get off track by making false assumptions and I'll ignore it.

[DJ MacWoW]

We have a right to have our grievances addressed. No one is elected King. Read the quotes again. Government is answerable to the people at all times not just during elections.

[Michael Michael]

We have a right to have our grievances addressed.

No, we don't. We have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. That doesn't mean that our grievance will be redressed. And we don't have the right to force any particular outcome. Otherwise, every Congress Critter would have to do everything every constituent demands they do, and that every federal judge would have to return the verdict demanded by the plaintiff.

Which of course is utterly absurd.

C'mon. Take a remedial civics class and learn a few things.

[DJ MacWoW]

You need it more than I do.

First Amendment Center

Some history
On July 4, 1776, the country’s Founders adopted a famous statement of principles and list of grievances, declaring that:

"In every state of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

King George III’s crowning wrong, in the end, was his indifference: Those who revolted felt they had no other recourse. In building a new democracy, the Founders avoided the king’s mistake by guaranteeing political receptiveness to public concerns.