Barack Obama or John McCain

[J. Raymond Carroll]

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

October

29, 2008

America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional

crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and

prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is "a natural born Citizen"

of the United States

Seems that Dr. Vieira and his foolowers can be helped if they receive treatment and counselling. Medication might help in some cases. So don't worry, Jack & Craig, there is HOPE.

For the last year and a half, a team of psychology professors has been conducting remarkable experiments on how Americans view Barack Obama through the prism of race.

the study found that the research subjects — Californian college students, many of them Democrats supportive of Mr. Obama — unconsciously perceived him as less American even than the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

It’s not that any of them actually believed Mr. Obama to be foreign. But the implicit association test measured the way the unconscious mind works, and in following instructions to sort images rapidly, the mind balked at accepting a black candidate as fully American. This result mattered: The more difficulty a person had in classifying Mr. Obama as American, the less likely that person was to support Mr. Obama.

A flood of recent research has shown that most Americans, including Latinos and Asian-Americans, associate the idea of “American” with white skin. One study found that although people realize that Lucy Liu is American and that Kate Winslet is British, their minds automatically process an Asian face as foreign and a white face as American — hence this title in an academic journal: “Is Kate Winslet More American Than Lucy Liu?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/opinion/30kristof.html

[Craig Lamson]

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

October

29, 2008

America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional

crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and

prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is "a natural born Citizen"

of the United States

Seems that Dr. Vieira and his foolowers can be helped if they receive treatment and counselling. Medication might help in some cases. So don't worry, Jack & Craig, there is HOPE.

For the last year and a half, a team of psychology professors has been conducting remarkable experiments on how Americans view Barack Obama through the prism of race.

the study found that the research subjects — Californian college students, many of them Democrats supportive of Mr. Obama — unconsciously perceived him as less American even than the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

It’s not that any of them actually believed Mr. Obama to be foreign. But the implicit association test measured the way the unconscious mind works, and in following instructions to sort images rapidly, the mind balked at accepting a black candidate as fully American. This result mattered: The more difficulty a person had in classifying Mr. Obama as American, the less likely that person was to support Mr. Obama.

A flood of recent research has shown that most Americans, including Latinos and Asian-Americans, associate the idea of “American” with white skin. One study found that although people realize that Lucy Liu is American and that Kate Winslet is British, their minds automatically process an Asian face as foreign and a white face as American — hence this title in an academic journal: “Is Kate Winslet More American Than Lucy Liu?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/opinion/30kristof.html

Preparing your racism narrative for the coming Obama loss Ray? Or will it be that old saw, "they have stolen another election".

Things are shaping up for a VERY interesting night of televison Nov. 4th.

I'm curious Ray, exactly what documentation ON ANY PERSONAL SUBJECT has obie released to the public? Care to enlighten us?

Edited October 30, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I'm curious Ray, exactly what documentation ON ANY PERSONAL SUBJECT has obie released to the public? Care to enlighten us?

His marraige certificate is public record, as is his birth certificate and the birth certs of his wife and children. I wouldn't worry about his medical condition in the way Republicans worry about McCain's recurring cancer and the spector of Whack-Job Sarah as President of the USA, so please tell me what personal information about the bold Barack will make you happy, Craig, and I will endeavor to provide it.

We want you to be happy.

[Craig Lamson]

I'm curious Ray, exactly what documentation ON ANY PERSONAL SUBJECT has obie released to the public? Care to enlighten us?

His marraige certificate is public record, as is his birth certificate and the birth certs of his wife and children. I wouldn't worry about his medical condition in the way Republicans worry about McCain's recurring cancer and the spector of Whack-Job Sarah as President of the USA, so please tell me what personal information about the bold Barack will make you happy, Craig, and I will endeavor to provide it.

We want you to be happy.

Is his "birth certificate" public record Ray? Just wondering because its not really a certificate of birth, but rather a certificate of live birth, which is quite a different matter. And is the 'certificate" in the public record even real?

And why not his medical record, his student record etc.

In fact again, exactly what other personal records about the bold zero are available? Do you really know ANYTHING about him?

Edited October 30, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Christopher Hall]

OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP

DOWN

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

October

29, 2008

America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional

crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and

prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is "a natural born Citizen"

of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must

step down as the Democratic Party's candidate for President of the United

States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the

Electoral College meets. Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only "a natural

born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of

th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President" (Article II,

Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not "a Citizen of the United States

at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution."

Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, "a

natural born Citizen" who has never renounced his American citizenship is an

open question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative. But Obama's

stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is "his own" country with conclusive

proof on that score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly

suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After all, he is not

being pressed to solve a problem in quantum physics that is "above his pay

grade," but only asked to provide the public with the original copy of some

official record that establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans

could easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his

eligibility—unless he can not?

Now that Obama's citizenship has been seriously questioned,

the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The "burden of establishing

a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the

claim." Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948). And if each of the General

Government's powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every

requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual's exercise of those

powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before

that individual may exercise any of those powers. The Constitution's command

that "[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the

Office of President" is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and

every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals. Actually (not

simply presumptively or speculatively) being "a natural born Citizen" is the

condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore,

anyone who claims eligibility for "the Office of President" must, when credibly

challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient

evidence.

In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely

presents the question of Obama's true citizenship, the presiding judge

complained that Berg "would have us derail the democratic process by

invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent

excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential

primary in living memory." This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial

inquiry into Obama's eligibility for "the Office of President" will not deny his

supporters a "right" to vote for him—rather, it will determine whether they have

any such "right" at all. For, just as Obama's "right" to stand for election to

"the Office of President" is contingent upon his being "a natural born Citizen,"

so too are the "rights" of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether

he is even eligible for that "Office." If Obama is ineligible, then no one can

claim any "right" to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does

vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him.

The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because

Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for "the Office of President," but

instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks "standing" to

challenge Obama's eligibility: regardless of

questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the

existence of an injury in fact. * ** [A] candidate's ineligibility under the

Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By

extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not

change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the

primaries to the general election.

This pronouncement does not rise to the level of

hogwash.

First, the Constitution mandates that "[t]he judicial Power

shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution"

(Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg's suit plainly "aris[es] under th[e]

Constitution," in the sense of raising a critical constitutional issue. So the

only question is whether his suit is a constitutional "Case[ ]." The present

judicial test for whether a litigant's claim constitutes a constitutional "Case[

]" comes under the rubric of "standing"—a litigant with "standing" may proceed;

one without "standing" may not. "Standing," however, is not a term found

anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of

"standing," as they have been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial

decision, to be found there. Rather, the test for "standing" is almost entirely

a judicial invention.

True enough, the test for "standing" is not as ridiculous as

the judiciary's so-called "compelling governmental interest test," which

licenses public officials to abridge individuals' constitutional rights and

thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those officials, which

has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which is actually

anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of "standing" as abusive as the

"immunities" judges have cut from whole cloth for public officials who violate

their constitutional "Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution"

(Article VI, Clause 3)—in the face of the Constitution's explicit limitation on

official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the Constitution does

require that a litigant must present a true "Case[ ]." Yet, because the test for

"standing" is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its

specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to

be faulty. And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance,

inertia, and inaction are not to endanger America's constitutional form of

government. Which is precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported

"election" of Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that

office, not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the General

Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch (as explained

below).

Second, the notion upon which the judge in Berg v. Obama

fastened—namely, that Berg's "grievance remains too generalized to establish the

existence of an injury in fact," i.e., if everyone is injured or potentially

injured then no one has "standing"—is absurd on its face.

To be sure, no one has yet voted for Obama in the general

election. But does that mean that no one in any group smaller than the general

pool of America's voters in its entirety has suffered specific harm from Obama's

participation in the electoral process to date? Or will suffer such harm from

his continuing participation? What about the Democrats who voted for Hillary

Clinton as their party's nominee, but were saddled with Obama because other

Democrats voted for him even though they could not legally have done so if his

lack of eligibility for "the Office of President" had been judicially determined

before the Democratic primaries or convention? What about the States that have

registered Obama as a legitimate candidate for President, but will have been

deceived, perhaps even defrauded, if he is proven not to be "a natural born

Citizen"? And as far as the general election is concerned, what about the voters

among erstwhile Republicans and Independents who do not want John McCain as

President, and therefore will vote for Obama (or any Democrat, for that matter)

as "the lesser of two evils," but who later on may have their votes effectively

thrown out, and may have to suffer McCain's being declared the winner of the

election, if Obama's ineligibility is established? Or what about those voters

who made monetary contributions to Obama's campaign, but may at length discover

that their funds went, not only to an ineligible candidate, but to one who knew

he was ineligible?

These obvious harms pale into insignificance, however,

compared to the national disaster of having an outright usurper purportedly

"elected" as "President." In this situation, it is downright idiocy to claim, as

did the judge in Berg v. Obama, that a "generalized" injury somehow constitutes

no judicially cognizable injury at all. Self-evidently, to claim that a

"generalized" grievance negates "the existence of an injury in fact" is patently

illogical—for if everyone in any group can complain of the same harm of which

any one of them can complain, then the existence of some harm cannot be denied;

and the more people who can complain of that harm, the greater the aggregate or

cumulative seriousness of the injury. The whole may not be greater than the sum

of its parts; but it is at least equal to that sum! Moreover, for a judge to

rule that no injury redressable in a court of law exists, precisely because

everyone in America will be subjected to an individual posing as "the President"

but who constitutionally cannot be (and therefore is not) the President, sets

America on the course of judicially assisted political suicide. If Obama turns

out to be nothing more than an usurper who has fraudulently seized control of

the Presidency, not only will the Constitution have been egregiously flouted,

but also this whole country could be, likely will be, destroyed as a

consequence. And if this country is even credibly threatened with destruction,

every American will be harmed—irretrievably, should the threat become

actuality—including those who voted or intend to vote for Obama, who are also

part of We the People. Therefore, in this situation, any and every American must

have "standing" to demand—and must demand, both in judicial fora and in the fora

of public opinion—that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible

for "the Office of President."

Utterly imbecilic as an alternative is the judge's

prescription in Berg v. Obama that,

f, through the political process,

Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the

Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to

pass laws conferring standing on individuals like [berg]. Until that time,

voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that [berg] attempts

to bring * * * .

Recall that this selfsame judge held that Berg has no

constitutional "Case[ ]" because he has no "standing," and that he has no

"standing" because he has no "injury in fact," only a "generalized" "grievance."

This purports to be a finding of constitutional law: namely, that

constitutionally no "Case[ ]" exists. How, then, can Congress constitutionally

grant "standing" to individuals such as Berg, when the courts (assuming the Berg

decision is upheld on appeal) have ruled that those individuals have no

"standing"? If "standing" is a constitutional conception, and the courts deny

that "standing" exists in a situation such as this, and the courts have the

final say as to what the Constitution means—then Congress lacks any power to

contradict them. Congress cannot instruct the courts to exercise jurisdiction

beyond what the Constitution includes within "the judicial Power." Marbury v.

Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 173-180 (1803).

In fact, though, a Congressional instruction is entirely

unnecessary. Every American has what lawyers call "an implied cause of

action"—directly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution—to

require that anyone standing for "the Office of President" must verify his

eligibility for that position, at least when serious allegations have been put

forward that he is not eligible, and he has otherwise refused to refute those

allegations with evidence that should be readily available if he is eligible.

That "Case[ ]" is one the Constitution itself defines. And the Constitution must

be enforceable in such a "Case[ ]" in a timely manner, by anyone who cares to

seek enforcement, because of the horrendous consequences that will ensue if it

is flouted.

What are some of those

consequences?

First, if Obama is not "a natural born Citizen" or has

renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for "the Office of

President" (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be

"elected" by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of

Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors,

nor Members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by

unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the

Electors, or the Members of the House purport to "elect" Obama, he will be

nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can

never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even

all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his

usurpation.

Second, if Obama dares to take the Presidential "Oath or

Affirmation" of office, knowing that he is not "a natural born Citizen," he will

commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause

7). For, being ineligible for "the Office of President, he cannot "faithfully

execute the Office of President of the United States," or even execute it at

all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the "Oath or Affirmation" will

be a violation thereof! So, even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

himself looks the other way and administers the "Oath or Affirmation," Obama

will derive no authority whatsoever from it.

Third, his purported "Oath or Affirmation" being perjured from

the beginning, Obama's every subsequent act in the usurped "Office of President"

will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242,

which provides that:

[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute,

ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State,

Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any

rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or

laws of the United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than

one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in

violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or

threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * *

or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the

acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping

or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or

imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to

death.

Plainly enough, every supposedly "official" act performed by

an usurper in the President's chair will be an act "under color of law" that

necessarily and unavoidably "subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of

[some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the

Constitution * * * of the United States"—in the most general case, of the

constitutional "right[ ]" to an eligible and duly elected individual serving as

President, and the corresponding

constitutional "immunit[y]" from subjection to an usurper pretending to be "the

President."

Fourth, if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in

the guise of "the President," Obama will not constitutionally be the "Commander

in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the

several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" (see

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience

whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow

any of his purported "orders" will constitute a serious breach of military

discipline—and in extreme circumstances perhaps even "war crimes." In addition,

no one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government

will be required to put into effect any of Obama's purported "proclamations,"

"executive orders," or "directives."

Fifth, as nothing but an usurper (if he becomes one), Obama

will have no conceivable authority "to make Treaties", or to "nominate, and * *

* appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme

Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not *

* * otherwise provided for [in the Constitution]" (Article II, Section 2, Clause

2). And therefore any "Treaties" or "nominat[ions], and * * * appoint[ments]" he

purports to "make" will be void ab initio, no matter what the Senate does,

because the Senate can neither authorize an usurper to take such actions in the

first place, nor thereafter ratify them. One need not be a lawyer to foresee

what further, perhaps irremediable, chaos must ensue if an usurper, even with

"the Advice and Consent of the Senate", unconstitutionally "appoint * * *

Judges of the Supreme Court" whose votes thereafter make up the majorities that

wrongly decide critical "Cases" of constitutional law.

Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law

while an usurper pretends to occupy "the Office of President." The Constitution

provides that "[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives

and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of

the United States" (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing

as "the President of the United States," but to the true and rightful President.

If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no "Bill" will

or can, "before it become a Law, be presented to [him]." If no "Bill" is so

presented, no "Bill" will or can become a "Law." And any purported "Law" that

the usurper "approve" and "sign," or that Congress passes over the

usurper's "Objections," will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully "enters

office" as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as

long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as "President."

Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as "the

President," Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual

President, he cannot be "removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction

of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" (see Article II,

Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest

him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent

him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed

conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the

people.

Eighth, even did something approaching civil war not eventuate

from Obama's hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to

pretend to be "the President," and the people acquiesced in that charade, just

about everything that was done during his faux "tenure in office" by anyone

connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit

done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be

arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional

President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both

domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is

breathtaking.

The underlying problem will not be obviated if Obama, his

partisans in the Democratic Party, and his cheerleaders and cover-up artists in

the big media simply stonewall the issue of his (non)citizenship and contrive

for him to win the Presidential election. The cat is already out of the bag and

running all over the Internet. If he continues to dodge the issue, Obama will be

dogged with this question every day of his purported "Presidency." And

inevitably the truth will out. For the issue is too simple, the evidence (or

lack of it) too accessible. Either Obama can prove that he is "a natural born

Citizen" who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be

allowed to slip through with some doctored "birth certificate" generated long

after the alleged fact. On a matter this important, Americans will demand that,

before its authenticity is accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that

sort be subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable,

independent investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being

influenced by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political

party, or other special-interest organization whatsoever.

Berg v. Obama may very well end up in the Supreme Court. Yet

that ought to be unnecessary. For Obama's moral duty is to produce the evidence

of his citizenship sua sponte et instanter. Otherwise, he will be personally

responsible for all the consequences of his refusal to do so.

Of course, if Obama knows that he is not "a natural born

Citizen" who never renounced his American citizenship, then he also knows that

he and his henchmen have perpetrated numerous election-related frauds throughout

the country—the latest, still-ongoing one a colossal swindle targeting the

American people as a whole. If that is the case, his refusal "to be a witness

against himself" is perfectly explicable and even defensible on the grounds of

the Fifth Amendment. Howsoever justified as a matter of criminal law, though,

Obama's silence and inaction will not obviate the necessity for him to prove his

eligibility for "the Office of President." The Constitution may permit him to

"take the Fifth;" but it will not suffer him to employ that evasion as a means

to usurp the Presidency of the United States.

© 2008 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserve

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B.

(Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and

Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis

on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he

successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood

v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and

Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and

statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and

the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a

condition of their employment.

He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly

journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and

banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities

of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in

existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional

perspective. www.piecesofeight.us

He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the

political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story

of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval

it causes. www.crashmaker.com

His latest book is: "How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary"

... and Constitutional "Homeland Security," Volume One, The Nation in

Arms...

He can be reached at:

13877 Napa Drive

Manassas,

Virginia 20112.

E-Mail: Not available

Jack, you should be ashamed of yourself for posting such nonsense.

This is also nonsense but it is funny nonsense.

http://www.cnnbcvideo.com/index.html?nid=4...2231354-mA3uTix

John-

Why is Obama spending money contesting the lawsuit if it is nonsense?

It should be quite simple for Obama and his attorneys to debunk if everything is as he claims.

I don't know the truth about Obama's birthplace, but seeing him so vigorously resist the lawsuit and discovery efforts is quite interesting.

Chris

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I don't [want to] know the truth about Obama's birthplace, but seeing him so vigorously resist the lawsuit and discovery efforts is quite interesting.

Chris

C'mon, Chris, you're a lawyer. Don't pretend you don't know that the GREAT ONE is doing exactly what we all have to do when confronted with a lawsuit that is frivolous and vexatious.

We get the courts to toss out the case, which is exactly what Obama did. Since his own time is much too valuable (he's now raising $150 Million per month, remeber) to waste on a piece of crap litigation, he hires some flunky to take care of it.

Next case please, the courts are busy deciding REAL cases.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

is the 'certificate" in the public record even real?

The law has always presumed that an official record is real, until PROVEN otherwise.

And why not his medical record,

Even a blind man can see that his health is just fine, but thank you for asking. How about you ask a life insurance underwriter whether he would sell him a life policy WITHOUT a medical exam? then ask the same question about Magoo.

his student record etc.

His student record speaks for itself. He was an outstanding student.

Do you really know ANYTHING about him?

Actually, Craig, when you put it that way, I guess the only thing I know for certain is that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is the NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Makes you want to eat your heart out, don't it?

[Craig Lamson]

is the 'certificate" in the public record even real?

The law has always presumed that an official record is real, until PROVEN otherwise.

Translated for rayspeak: He does not have a real certificate of birth.

And why not his medical record,

Even a blind man can see that his health is just fine, but thank you for asking. How about you ask a life insurance underwriter whether he would sell him a life policy WITHOUT a medical exam? then ask the same question about Magoo.

Translated from rayspeak: ZerOBAMA is above the requests of the electorate and none of your business. How dare you ask.

his student record etc.

His student record speaks for itself. He was an outstanding student.

Translated from rayspeak: His records are not "available and none of you business. How dare you ask.

Do you really know ANYTHING about him?

Actually, Craig, when you put it that way, I guess the only thing I know for certain is that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is the NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

I"m going to feel quite sorry for you come Nov. 5 when ZerooO is NOT the president. It will be one hell of a koolaid hangover.

Makes you want to eat your heart out, don't it?

No, not at all. I'll be able to say, Thank you Vice President -elect Palin.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I'll be able to say, Thank you Vice President -elect Palin.

Vice-President Whack-Job, the nation is depending on you to run the country for Magoo, because according to FOX NEWS Magoo admits he ain't up to the job himself.

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/29...-aims-at-palin/

[Christopher Hall]

I don't [want to] know the truth about Obama's birthplace, but seeing him so vigorously resist the lawsuit and discovery efforts is quite interesting.

Chris

C'mon, Chris, you're a lawyer. Don't pretend you don't know that the GREAT ONE is doing exactly what we all have to do when confronted with a lawsuit that is frivolous and vexatious.

We get the courts to toss out the case, which is exactly what Obama did. Since his own time is much too valuable (he's now raising $150 Million per month, remeber) to waste on a piece of crap litigation, he hires some flunky to take care of it.

Next case please, the courts are busy deciding REAL cases.

No, Raymond, he is spending money to avoid having to prove something that is painfully easy to prove.

[David G. Healy]

is the 'certificate" in the public record even real?

The law has always presumed that an official record is real, until PROVEN otherwise.

Translated for rayspeak: He does not have a real certificate of birth.

And why not his medical record,

Even a blind man can see that his health is just fine, but thank you for asking. How about you ask a life insurance underwriter whether he would sell him a life policy WITHOUT a medical exam? then ask the same question about Magoo.

Translated from rayspeak: ZerOBAMA is above the requests of the electorate and none of your business. How dare you ask.

his student record etc.

His student record speaks for itself. He was an outstanding student.

Translated from rayspeak: His records are not "available and none of you business. How dare you ask.

Do you really know ANYTHING about him?

Actually, Craig, when you put it that way, I guess the only thing I know for certain is that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is the NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

I"m going to feel quite sorry for you come Nov. 5 when ZerooO is NOT the president. It will be one hell of a koolaid hangover.

Makes you want to eat your heart out, don't it?

No, not at all. I'll be able to say, Thank you Vice President -elect Palin.

C'mon Craig.... The Shrub blew it with Iraq, the GOPer's will be paying for years and years. --AND--

Obama's birth certificate is all over the web, time for the GOP's Gofer's to get agofer'in, where's the beef, son? Or is this just 'nother GOP nocturnal emi**ion...

Kool-aid? Hell son, we're you in Jonestown too? I was there 3 days after the mass suicide. You GOP gofers sure like that Kool-aid term. Shame on you for having no appreciation for that tragedy -- then again, it was nearly ALL black casualties, makes no difference right?

Edited October 30, 2008 by David G. Healy

[J. Raymond Carroll]

No, Raymond, he is spending money to avoid having to prove something that is painfully easy to prove.

Young man, you are confused.

His Birth Certificate is Public Record, the official document that stands as FORMAL LEGAL PROOF that THE BOLD ONE was truly BORN IN THE USA.

If an official record is challenged, the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the challenger. So it would be a mere TAUTOLOGY to PROVE that a birth certificate is real, since it is already a PROVEN FACT.

If there was a real case against THE BOLD ONE's birth certificate, the Clinton's would have found it long, long ago, but trust old Magoo to be a year late and a couple of hundred million dollars short.

Because I kinda like Magoo, I'm not going to mention the fact that Magoo was born in a foreign country,

while Obama was BORN IN THE USA.

Obama is more American than Magoo. Makes you want to eat your heart out, don't it?

[Christopher Hall]

No, Raymond, he is spending money to avoid having to prove something that is painfully easy to prove.

Young man, you are confused.

His Birth Certificate is Public Record, the official document that stands as FORMAL LEGAL PROOF that THE BOLD ONE was truly BORN IN THE USA.

If an official record is challenged, the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the challenger. So it would be a mere TAUTOLOGY to PROVE that a birth certificate is real, since it is already a PROVEN FACT.

If there was a real case against THE BOLD ONE's birth certificate, the Clinton's would have found it long, long ago, but trust old Magoo to be a year late and a couple of hundred million dollars short.

Because I kinda like Magoo, I'm not going to mention the fact that Magoo was born in a foreign country,

while Obama was BORN IN THE USA.

Obama is more American than Magoo. Makes you want to eat your heart out, don't it?

Confused, perhaps, but young, I don't think so.

As I said, I don't know what the facts are and neither do you.

And what precisely do you know about burdens of proof on qualification for Presidency?

Is the burden on the proponent or on someone challenging his status?

I don't see anything anything in the Constitution about presumptions as to qualification for the Presidency unless proven to the contrary by a preponderance of the evidence.

Like I said, though, what I see is Obama fighting something that he would presumably be happy to easily dispell and the Governor of Hawaii anouncing last week that Obama's birth records would be sealed.

When I see the government insist on secrecy, I get a little curious.

And lighten up, he's going to win.

I just want to know the truth.

Edited October 30, 2008 by Christopher Hall

[Craig Lamson]

is the 'certificate" in the public record even real?

The law has always presumed that an official record is real, until PROVEN otherwise.

Translated for rayspeak: He does not have a real certificate of birth.

And why not his medical record,

Even a blind man can see that his health is just fine, but thank you for asking. How about you ask a life insurance underwriter whether he would sell him a life policy WITHOUT a medical exam? then ask the same question about Magoo.

Translated from rayspeak: ZerOBAMA is above the requests of the electorate and none of your business. How dare you ask.

his student record etc.

His student record speaks for itself. He was an outstanding student.

Translated from rayspeak: His records are not "available and none of you business. How dare you ask.

Do you really know ANYTHING about him?

Actually, Craig, when you put it that way, I guess the only thing I know for certain is that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is the NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

I"m going to feel quite sorry for you come Nov. 5 when ZerooO is NOT the president. It will be one hell of a koolaid hangover.

Makes you want to eat your heart out, don't it?

No, not at all. I'll be able to say, Thank you Vice President -elect Palin.

C'mon Craig.... The Shrub blew it with Iraq, the GOPer's will be paying for years and years. --AND--

Obama's birth certificate is all over the web, time for the GOP's Gofer's to get agofer'in, where's the beef, son? Or is this just 'nother GOP nocturnal emi**ion...

"all over the web" now there is somthing to brag about. Of course if its "on the web" it must be true eh dave? Oswald did it is "all over the web". So can we count you in that camp as well now? Of course its not the GOP pushing this, but rather a dyed in the wool dim...imagine that.

Kool-aid? Hell son, we're you in Jonestown too? I was there 3 days after the mass suicide. You GOP gofers sure like that Kool-aid term. Shame on you for having no appreciation for that tragedy -- then again, it was nearly ALL black casualties, makes no difference right?

I'm so happy for you. But your presence gives you no more or less appreciation than many others dave. People are people. RACE really means nothing in the long haul. But how wonderful for you, to bring RACISM into the discussion. It is however a step up from the gutter for you, at least you didn't call anyone a nazi this time...

Edited October 31, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I can remember exactly where I was when I first read the opening paragraph of Catch-22, and it turned out to be about the most fun I ever had with my clothes on. So it is good to be reminded of Joseph Heller this week, at the climax of the funniest election that the mind of man is capable of dreaming up. It is hard to stop laughing at this election, like it was hard to stop laughing at every page of Heller's book.

In this article Heller's daughter gives her inside view of the real Joseph Heller, and ponders how he would vote in election 2008.

I was surprised by her answer, until I saw the catch. Of course there had to be a catch.

Erica Heller: So, Who Would Joseph Heller Vote For Next Tuesday?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erica-heller...e_b_139272.html