I just received the following press release from Andy Martin:
Hawai'i judge sets hearing date in Barack Obama birth certificate case
>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Hawaii Circuit Judge Bert I Ayabe set a November 18 hearing in Andy Martin's case to release Barack Obama's original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate and any supporting documents
(HONOLULU)(October 29, 2008) Judge Bert I Ayabe Wednesday set a hearing in the case of Andy Martin vs. Linda Lingle, First Circuit for Honolulu, No. 08-1-2147-10.
The hearing is set for November 18, 2008 at 10:30 A.M.
Anyone wishing to contribute to the expenses of this litigation is welcome to do so:
http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com
---------------------------------------------
ANDY MARTIN
Post Office Box 1851
New York, NY 10150-1851
Toll-free tel. (866) 706-2639
Toll-free fax (866) 707-2639
Temporary Hawai'i
tel. (917) 664-9329
Plaintiff pro se
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII
ANDY MARTIN, ) CIVIL NUMBER: 08-1-2147-10
) (Declaratory Judgment)
Plaintiff, ) Judge Ayabe
)
vs. ) COMPLAINT FOR
) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
LINDA LINGLE, in her ) EXHIBIT 1: SUMMONS
Official capacity as Governor )
Of the State of Hawai'i, )
DR. CHIYOME FUKINO, in her )
official capacity as Director )
of the Department of Health, )
)
Defendants. )
_________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff ANDY MARTIN ("Plaintiff"), pro se, alleges in his Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against the Defendants as follows:
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Plaintiff ANDY MARTIN is the author of a book on Senator Barack Obama ("Senator Obama"). He has also been writing columns and commentary about the senator for over four (4) years.
Defendants LINDA LINGLE and DR. CHIYOME FUKINO are Governor and Director of the Department of Health, respectively.
This Complaint for Declaratory Relief and these proceedings are instituted pursuant to § 632-1, Hawai'i Revised Statutes.
Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to § 603-36, Hawaii Revised Statutes.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1. Plaintiff requested a certified copy of the birth certificate of Senator Obama from the Department of Health and tendered the requisite fee.
2. Defendants refused to provide a copy of said certificate, invoking the confidentiality statutes of the State.
3. The issue of the Senator's birth certificate has become a controversial topic of intense national speculation.
4. As an author who strives for factual accuracy and attempts to conduct thorough research Plaintiff wants a copy of the Senator's birth certificate attested to by the State and not a "certificate" which is posted on a web site and which has been debunked as possibly having been altered.
5. One of the more literate and temperate analyses of the unlawfulness of the Defendants' refusal to issue certified copies of the birth certificate is contained in Exhibit 1 attached hereto.
6. To the extent that the Defendants' files contain or retain original supporting data for the birth certificate, Plaintiff asks that he also be supplied with that information and/or material as well.
7. It is axiomatic that the birth certificate of a presidential candidate is a document of crucial public concern and significance.
8. While Hawai'i statutes call for a balancing or weighing test where production is considered by a court, most respectfully Plaintiff submits that the balance falls entirely on the side of disclosure where the original birth certificate of a presidential candidate is concerned.
DECLARATORY RELIEF SOUGHT
9. Based on the relevant statutes and constitutional law, including Article One, Section 4 ("freedom of the press") and § 92F-15 (e) and § 338-18 (a) (9), Plaintiff asks that the Court direct and order defendants to turn over forthwith a copy of Senator Obama's birth certificate and related files and records, and without any delay.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Andy Martin prays for relief as follows:
A. For a declaration by this Court that Plaintiff is an author and writer and is a person to whom the birth certificate of Senator Obama can and should properly be delivered forthwith;
B. For such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
Dated: Honolulu, Hawai'i, ______________________
Respectfully submitted,
ANDY MARTIN
Plaintiff Pro se
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
URGENT APPEAL: The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama is raising money to fight Barack Obama. http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com. Please give generously up to the maximum of $100. Our ability to fight and defeat Barack Obama is directly dependent on the generosity of every American."
The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama limits itself to $100 maximum contributions; there are no bundlers, fat cats or illegal contributions. Obama is opposed to everything America stands for," says Executive Director Andy Martin. "But while Obama has raised more than a third of a BILLION dollars, his opponents have raised virtually nothing. We can't just sit back and expect John McCain to do the job all alone. Americans can either contribute now, or pay later. If we do not succeed, Obama will."
E-mail: contact@CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com
---------------------------------------------
MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329
E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Renaming the Media
CNN, AP, the New York Times and the like are no longer entitled to be called "mainstream media". There is nothing "mainstream" about them, and their audiences don't warrant the moniker "mainstream". If the Libertarian Party is not a "mainstream" party, why is the New York Times a "mainstream" newspaper?
Circulation of New York Times: 1.1 million daily, 1.6 million Sunday
Votes received by Libertarian Party candidates for House of Reps: Over one million
Votes for Libertarian Party presidential candidate Michael Badnarik in 2006: 397,265
Readers of political blogs in 2004 (the number is much higher now): 32 million*
*27% x 120 million Internet users = 32.4 million
If the Libertarian Party is not a "mainstream" political party, why is a newspaper with 100,000, 300,000 or 1.1 million readers "mainstream"?
I have carefully thought about this question. The word "pissant" comes to mind as a good description of the media, but it is somewhat vulgar. The word "puissant" means the opposite of "pissant". Derived from Middle French, "puissant" is related to the words "posse" and "potent" and refers to "power". It is probably more accurate to say that the New York Times has power than that it is mainstream. In fact, I would argue that it represents an extremist social democratic point of view. On the other hand, "pissant" means insignificant or worthless, and derives from the word pismire, which in turn refers to the smell of uric acid on ant hills.
Although the two words are opposite in meaning, they both could apply to the media. Pissant is probably more accurate but because of its vulgarity the word "puissant", which means powerful but reminds one of "pissant" might be the best word.
The mainstream media is hereby dubbed the "puissant media".
Circulation of New York Times: 1.1 million daily, 1.6 million Sunday
Votes received by Libertarian Party candidates for House of Reps: Over one million
Votes for Libertarian Party presidential candidate Michael Badnarik in 2006: 397,265
Readers of political blogs in 2004 (the number is much higher now): 32 million*
*27% x 120 million Internet users = 32.4 million
If the Libertarian Party is not a "mainstream" political party, why is a newspaper with 100,000, 300,000 or 1.1 million readers "mainstream"?
I have carefully thought about this question. The word "pissant" comes to mind as a good description of the media, but it is somewhat vulgar. The word "puissant" means the opposite of "pissant". Derived from Middle French, "puissant" is related to the words "posse" and "potent" and refers to "power". It is probably more accurate to say that the New York Times has power than that it is mainstream. In fact, I would argue that it represents an extremist social democratic point of view. On the other hand, "pissant" means insignificant or worthless, and derives from the word pismire, which in turn refers to the smell of uric acid on ant hills.
Although the two words are opposite in meaning, they both could apply to the media. Pissant is probably more accurate but because of its vulgarity the word "puissant", which means powerful but reminds one of "pissant" might be the best word.
The mainstream media is hereby dubbed the "puissant media".
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Obama, Khalidi, and O'Reilly
Contrairimairi forwarded a Charles Lemos By the Fault article. In the Youtube video featured on Lemos's site, Obama denies any special connection to Khalidi.
Lemos notes that Obama failed to mention that Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian anti-Semite,
-hosted a fundraiser for Obama when he ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2000, or that
-Obama attended a testimonial dinner for Khalidi and praised him when Khalidi left Chicago to chair Columbia’s Middle Eastern Studies Department, or that
-while Obama served on the Board of the Woods Fund, the board voted to grant $40,000.00 to the Arab American Network, an organization headed by Khalidi’s wife, Mona Khalidi.
The Woods Fund is also the focus of Obama's relationship with William Ayers.
At a dinner celebrating Palestinian culture the LA Times reported in April 2008 that:
"a special tribute came from Khalidi’s friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi’s wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.
"His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table,” but around “this entire world.”
Yet, the major news outlets are willing to accept Obama's claim that he hardly knew Khalidi. This is more than journalistic incompetence. Listening for about sixty seconds to O'Reilly tonight I heard O'Reilly speak of Obama's "presidential statesmanship." But O'Reilly has refused to discuss Obama's pathological lying or to question him about it when Obama appeared on his program. The mass media, from ABC to Fox, from O'Reilly to Lou Dobbs, has been a hall of mirrors.
Contrairimairis adds:
"These were BO's words back in May, when his affiliations with Rashid Khalidi came under closer scrutiny. My question is........WHERE are the "900" other friends? Why do we not have someone from the "hood" just coming forward to say......"Wow, I know Barack, what a great guy! I think you can really trust him. His kids and my kids used to play together...I think Barack has ALWAYS maintained a very 'clandestine' life because he has NEVER viewed America the way 'Americans' view America. His 'friends' all seem to think there is something seriously wrong with this Country, that needs to be RADICALLY fixed...
"You see, I truly believe that once the crown is on his head, all those waiting under the bus will be greeted with open arms at the WH. And probably with TONS of praise and thanks for their understanding that the prize had to be first obtained, and THEN the associations could resume at full speed. We may even start to see those questionable 'disbursements' begin once again.
"This is just so frightening, that so many Americans are willing to be duped...Seriously, it's not like there was a single person who hated America.....let's say Billy Boy, and another who said we should be against nuclear energy, and maybe another who thought we should be sharing technology with oh,....maybe Australia. That is not what these associations are, or show. They are all America hating, Jew/Israel hating..."
Mairi is right, of course. But this is not the first time "progressive" Jews have preferred the pride of political correctness and fashion over concern for palpable, potentially murderous anti-Semitism. In the 1930s, for example, New York's "progressive" Jewish community was passive during the lead up to the Holocaust, and their passivity was encouraged by the Ochs Sulzbergers, owners of the New York Times, who buried the Holocaust story in the remote inner pages of their newspaper. Today, "progressives" prefer to be cool, to side with fashion and to call Sarah Palin anti-Semitic because she once attended a meeting where a Jewish convert to Christianity spoke. Meanwhile, their favored candidate openly associates with an activist who aggressively supports those who murder Jews.
Lemos notes that Obama failed to mention that Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian anti-Semite,
-hosted a fundraiser for Obama when he ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2000, or that
-Obama attended a testimonial dinner for Khalidi and praised him when Khalidi left Chicago to chair Columbia’s Middle Eastern Studies Department, or that
-while Obama served on the Board of the Woods Fund, the board voted to grant $40,000.00 to the Arab American Network, an organization headed by Khalidi’s wife, Mona Khalidi.
The Woods Fund is also the focus of Obama's relationship with William Ayers.
At a dinner celebrating Palestinian culture the LA Times reported in April 2008 that:
"a special tribute came from Khalidi’s friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi’s wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.
"His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table,” but around “this entire world.”
Yet, the major news outlets are willing to accept Obama's claim that he hardly knew Khalidi. This is more than journalistic incompetence. Listening for about sixty seconds to O'Reilly tonight I heard O'Reilly speak of Obama's "presidential statesmanship." But O'Reilly has refused to discuss Obama's pathological lying or to question him about it when Obama appeared on his program. The mass media, from ABC to Fox, from O'Reilly to Lou Dobbs, has been a hall of mirrors.
Contrairimairis adds:
"These were BO's words back in May, when his affiliations with Rashid Khalidi came under closer scrutiny. My question is........WHERE are the "900" other friends? Why do we not have someone from the "hood" just coming forward to say......"Wow, I know Barack, what a great guy! I think you can really trust him. His kids and my kids used to play together...I think Barack has ALWAYS maintained a very 'clandestine' life because he has NEVER viewed America the way 'Americans' view America. His 'friends' all seem to think there is something seriously wrong with this Country, that needs to be RADICALLY fixed...
"You see, I truly believe that once the crown is on his head, all those waiting under the bus will be greeted with open arms at the WH. And probably with TONS of praise and thanks for their understanding that the prize had to be first obtained, and THEN the associations could resume at full speed. We may even start to see those questionable 'disbursements' begin once again.
"This is just so frightening, that so many Americans are willing to be duped...Seriously, it's not like there was a single person who hated America.....let's say Billy Boy, and another who said we should be against nuclear energy, and maybe another who thought we should be sharing technology with oh,....maybe Australia. That is not what these associations are, or show. They are all America hating, Jew/Israel hating..."
Mairi is right, of course. But this is not the first time "progressive" Jews have preferred the pride of political correctness and fashion over concern for palpable, potentially murderous anti-Semitism. In the 1930s, for example, New York's "progressive" Jewish community was passive during the lead up to the Holocaust, and their passivity was encouraged by the Ochs Sulzbergers, owners of the New York Times, who buried the Holocaust story in the remote inner pages of their newspaper. Today, "progressives" prefer to be cool, to side with fashion and to call Sarah Palin anti-Semitic because she once attended a meeting where a Jewish convert to Christianity spoke. Meanwhile, their favored candidate openly associates with an activist who aggressively supports those who murder Jews.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
