Supreme Court to Hear Case on Obama

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Twisp

Or the other side of it, where the Army decided they didn't want a person given to wild conspiracy's in their service. And what proof is there that a government agency convinced his employer to fire him? He did work at in a civilian defense contractor position, but again, I would think his employer would not want to be associated with him.

NO. The army would have nipped this in the bud, if they could have. Now they risk others following suit EXCEPT that they may then fear for their jobs. Works well to keep them out of court, no?

Proof that a government agency made sure he got fired? You mean like having a government agency contact his employer and strongly encouraging it. Yes, that is what he was specifically told by his employer.

[coadie]

This against labor laws. a wrongfull termination lawsuit if I ever saw one. There is not only nothing in a handbook for most companies that allows for these non policy violation terminations, but The US department of labor usually adds penalties. There is also civil litigation for these.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Newman

NO. The army would have nipped this in the bud, if they could have. Now they risk others following suit EXCEPT that they may then fear for their jobs. Works well to keep them out of court, no?

Proof that a government agency made sure he got fired? You mean like having a government agency contact his employer and strongly encouraging it. Yes, that is what he was specifically told by his employer.

It seems like the Army did nip this one in the bud. His lawsuit is moot now, I would imagine, just like many of the others. And again, what proof is there that the Army pushed for his termination?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Twisp

It seems like the Army did nip this one in the bud. His lawsuit is moot now, I would imagine, just like many of the others. And again, what proof is there that the Army pushed for his termination?

What does snopes offer for proof?



Obama climate czar accused of law-breaking
June 12, 2009
House Republicans Darrell Issa and James Sensenbrenner are calling for an investigation of whether Obama climate czar Carol Browner’s secrecy in developing Obama’s CAFE standards and EPA’s CO2 endangerment finding was a “deliberate and willful violation” of the Presidential Records Act.

According to the letter,

… Mary Nichols, the head of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), revealed to the New York Times that the White House held a series of secret meetings with select special interests as they were crafting the new CAFE standards. Nichols was a key player in these negotiations because of California’s determined efforts to regulate fuel economy standards at the state level. Nichols admitted there was a deliberate “vow of silence“
surrounding the negotiations between the White House and California on vehicle fuel economy [standards]. According to Nichols’ interview, “[Carol] Browner [Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change] quietly orchestrated private discussions from the White House with auto industry officials.” Great care was taken to “put nothing in writing, ever.” This coordinated effort, led by Carol Browner, to leave no paper trail of the deliberations within the White House appears to be a deliberate and willful violation of the Presidential Records Act. This Act requires the President to take, “all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of his constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties are adequately documented and that such records are maintained as Presidential records.” Clearly, Browner’s actions were intended to leave little to no documentation of the deliberations that lead to the development of stringent new CAFE standards.


Glad you asked. In the new clandestine fascist government stylle and culture this quote is timely.

Where is the original birth certificate?

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by coadie

What does snopes offer for proof?



Obama climate czar accused of law-breaking
June 12, 2009
House Republicans Darrell Issa and James Sensenbrenner are calling for an investigation of whether Obama climate czar Carol Browner’s secrecy in developing Obama’s CAFE standards and EPA’s CO2 endangerment finding was a “deliberate and willful violation” of the Presidential Records Act.

According to the letter,

… Mary Nichols, the head of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), revealed to the New York Times that the White House held a series of secret meetings with select special interests as they were crafting the new CAFE standards. Nichols was a key player in these negotiations because of California’s determined efforts to regulate fuel economy standards at the state level. Nichols admitted there was a deliberate “vow of silence“
surrounding the negotiations between the White House and California on vehicle fuel economy [standards]. According to Nichols’ interview, “[Carol] Browner [Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change] quietly orchestrated private discussions from the White House with auto industry officials.” Great care was taken to “put nothing in writing, ever.” This coordinated effort, led by Carol Browner, to leave no paper trail of the deliberations within the White House appears to be a deliberate and willful violation of the Presidential Records Act. This Act requires the President to take, “all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of his constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties are adequately documented and that such records are maintained as Presidential records.” Clearly, Browner’s actions were intended to leave little to no documentation of the deliberations that lead to the development of stringent new CAFE standards.


Glad you asked. In the new clandestine fascist government stylle and culture this quote is timely.

Where is the original birth certificate?

You seem to be stuck on Snopes, for some reason. You should really get your news from multiple sources, not just Snopes.

And, yes, that is what I am asking you and other "birthers", where is the proof the Army had him fired?

I am not sure where his original birth certificate it, and apparently he does not know either. All we have is the one the State of Hawaii issued to him during the campaign. I guess that was good enough for the State of Hawaii.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Twisp

It seems like the Army did nip this one in the bud. His lawsuit is moot now, I would imagine, just like many of the others. And again, what proof is there that the Army pushed for his termination?

The army nipped it in the bud by changing their order???? Good grief!

What parent gives a child exactly what they want when they do something wrong? What would the other children do, if they saw little Suzie getting her way when acting out?

No, they nipped it in the bud by having him fired. What proof? What do you expect? Something in writing like this?

Dear employer,

Please fire Mr. Cook so that other reserves don't get the crazy idea that they should likewise bring a lawsuit to get out of combat duty.

[We could have let it play out in court for once and all so that no one else would be so foolish but that seemed a bit risky given the president's reluctance to bring any bonafide documents into a courtroom].

Again. Thank you for handling this pesky little detail. Your service to the country is appreciated. As you know we have a big contract order coming up. We will be in touch again.

US Government Agency

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Newman

The army nipped it in the bud by changing their order???? Good grief!

What parent gives a child exactly what they want when they do something wrong? What would the other children do, if they saw little Suzie getting her way when acting out?

No, they nipped it in the bud by having him fired. What proof? What do you expect? Something in writing like this?

Dear employer,

Please fire Mr. Cook so that other reserves don't get the crazy idea that they should likewise bring a lawsuit to get out of combat duty.

[We could have let it play out in court for once and all so that no one else would be so foolish but that seemed a bit risky given the president's reluctance to bring any bonafide documents into a courtroom].

Again. Thank you for handling this pesky little detail. Your service to the country is appreciated. As you know we have a big contract order coming up. We will be in touch again.

US Government Agency

Really, any legitimate proof would work. Any legitimate proof for any of this would work.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Twisp

Really, any legitimate proof would work. Any legitimate proof for any of this would work.

I'm sure you will get it with the proof of his birth really being in America.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Esther

I'm sure you will get it with the proof of his birth really being in America.

We already have that proof. That is a well-known fact. No one seems to have proof that he is not an American citizen.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Esther

I'm sure you will get it with the proof of his birth really being in America.

They keep pushing the fake deal. With a 200 dollar printer, the illegals are good to go. The technology is more difficult in fake ID's and magnetic strips.