The birth certificate please! Subpoena to be delivered

[detroitjazzman]

Well it looks like Obama's crew is at it again.lol

You are a PRIME example of what's wrong with the Public Education System!....done with it!.... you are definately unarmed for a battle of wits

[ajskj]

Well it looks like Obama's crew is at it again.lol

Actually, it just looks like rusty is at it again......and being debunked AGAIN.

[debbieb40]

thank you for keeping on this and sharing it with us.

People need to know what is going on because it will affect ALL of us.

Especially with the blessing that is going to happen for us investors.

we will feel it in our pocket book namely TAXES for those who are going to

pay taxes. Congress will also be changing laws for the LLC group to recoup

taxes.. We need to get O out of office and repeal laws that he has signed

and take our country back " to the people, of the people and FOR THE PEOPLE.

that is my thoughts

[mojack]

thank you for keeping on this and sharing it with us.

People need to know what is going on because it will affect ALL of us.

Especially with the blessing that is going to happen for us investors.

we will feel it in our pocket book namely TAXES for those who are going to

pay taxes. Congress will also be changing laws for the LLC group to recoup

taxes.. We need to get O out of office and repeal laws that he has signed

and take our country back " to the people, of the people and FOR THE PEOPLE.

that is my thoughts

...............................

Edited July 30, 2011 by mojack

[cw2]

.......Vogt and Irey both told WND they are making travel plans to join Taitz in Honolulu when she goes to the state agency at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, Aug. 8, to present the subpoena in person.

"We will plan to hold a press conference late in the day of Aug. 8," Vogt said, "and if the document we see varies from the birth certificate documents the White House released, we plan to file criminal charges in Hawaii immediately."

August 8th is a Monday!!!!!

[DinarMillionaire]

IMHO this whole situation screams of racism. Now, I did not see rtrusty say anything about race and I am not accusing him of such. All I am saying is, I have never heard of this birth certificate issue with any other president. I certainly have not researched it, as I have not researched this particular birth certificate issue. That is my point completely. There is no point in researching, because the birthers made a point to bring it to every ones attention. They start out by saying, "this has nothing to do with race". Well, that is like starting a conversation with, "no disrespect, but...". You know it's going to be disrespectful. Don't vote for the cat in 2012....very simple.

GO RV, then BV

FYI, there have been at least 7 previous cases (all white men, btw and no one screamed racism) on this very issue, including John McCain. And John McCain didn't take two and a half years to show his proof, when the Democrats were accusing him of not being born in the United States. He has no lawsuits being filed to prove anything.

I'm not saying either way how I think this will turn out, only that with as much evidence out there that something could be wrong, it needs to be persued to the inth degree. It should be proven beyond any doubt that Obama is eligible or not. The office of the President is too important to just sweep all the controversy under the proverbial rug. I'll at least stay open minded until it gets cleared up one way or the other.

Thanks, rtrusty for keeping the info coming. Until this thing dies, I want to stay informed.

[ajskj]

.......Vogt and Irey both told WND they are making travel plans to join Taitz in Honolulu when she goes to the state agency at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, Aug. 8, to present the subpoena in person.

"We will plan to hold a press conference late in the day of Aug. 8," Vogt said, "and if the document we see varies from the birth certificate documents the White House released, we plan to file criminal charges in Hawaii immediately."

August 8th is a Monday!!!!!

FYI, there have been at least 7 previous cases (all white men, btw and no one screamed racism) on this very issue, including John McCain And John McCain didn't take two and a half years to show his proof, when the Democrats were accusing him of not being born in the United States. He has no lawsuits being filed to prove anything.

I'm not saying either way how I think this will turn out, only that with as much evidence out there that something could be wrong, it needs to be persued to the inth degree. It should be proven beyond any doubt that Obama is eligible or not. The office of the President is too important to just sweep all the controversy under the proverbial rug. I'll at least stay open minded until it gets cleared up one way or the other.

Thanks, rtrusty for keeping the info coming. Until this thing dies, I want to stay informed.

No other resident has ever been asked to produce his LONG FOR BIRTH CERTIFICATE...and NO other president has been pursued to this degree over a campaign of misinformation and lies.

[Sirius]

Actually, it just looks like rusty is at it again......and being debunked AGAIN.

PUMA: The First Birthers

In early summer, 2007, the so called “Birther” conspiracy theory was first created by renegade members of an ultra leftist group known as the PUMAs. (That’s right! They were leftists). They were a splinter group of hard-core Hillarious Clinton supporters who did not want to surrender the Democrat party nomination to Obama after a hard fought campaign leading to the 2008 Democratic nomination. In June, 2008, PUMAParty.com began promoting the idea that their party’s nomination of Barack Obama could be overturned on constitutional grounds that he was not eligible to be president based on the fact that he may not be a natural born citizen.

Thus, the Birther movement actually began in the minds of liberals, not “right-wing nuts” as Obama zealots love to claim.

Debunk that.

[PartyTime]

What's wrong with this picture you've painted? All lame and gutless! Circumstantial evidence can start from an ill-thought, hate or disbelief... then all of the delusional thinkers catch on and embellish at will. Oh and then the lynch mob! Doesn't take much circumstantial evidence to get weak minded folks together for a meeting in the middle of the night. Really only takes fear!

Much like the rumors of the dinar! Every little thing that makes someone go hmmm is now circumstantial evidence that something is going on and then people jump in and support them - knowing it's meaningless, but they say good post, i wondered also!!

Every little story you've mentioned has another side. But you need a judge to decipher for you.... that's incredibly weak my man! If I believed as heavy as you do, as a birther, NO judge can tell me differently. Therefore, you could never apologize for thinking your way and I wouldn't ask you to - there will always be your kind.

BTW; you can't ask my siblings today which hospital I was born in! Is that a knock on my history of birth or a weakness of my family cohesiveness?

We can't sell each other so can we all just be friends?

Weak again!

I need a Judge to decipher for me? Decipher what? I never said anything about needing any Judge for anything. I said this issue on natural born citizen has never been resolved by the courts. I certainly know its meaning and Obama ain't it. But what I sais is when the court finally does settle it that is when I would give it rest. Not because I need the Supremes to decipher it for me. I already know the answer. But regardless of their answer whether I agree or disagree that is the end of the road on the matter and whatever their decision is is what it is and I have no choice but to have to accept it.

People are asking what it will take to give this a rest. It is simple. Two things. The release of the original type written birth records, which of course will have to be inspected at the HI State office since I fully understand they cannot actually release them where they can be allowed to leave their premises. That will resolve whether he was really born here or not. Two. For the Supreme Court to allow the agruments over what the meaning of natural born citizen is. Many know this already, but many on the left want to argue otherwise, so this issue must be resolved by the court which is the only way any constitutional issues can be resolved. We can go back and forth until the end of time and no matter I, you or anyone else says will never resolve this issue. People on the left have their motive for wanting to mean what they want it to mean and I am only interested in the truth regardless of the outcome. You CHOOSE to be satisfied with everything they have released even though they are forgeries, and I don't. But that is why the courts are there. To settle legal disputes. But the courts are dodging this issue by using the BS standing issue stating no one has the standing to bring this issue before the courts.

The first issue may finally be able to be put to rest depending on what stunt HI pulls to get out of complying with the subpoena they were issued. Lets hope that one gets resolved finally. Then we can work on the court to get the last issue resolved. Then we can finally put the issue to rest and move on.

[PartyTime]

What's wrong with this picture you've painted? All lame and gutless! Circumstantial evidence can start from an ill-thought, hate or disbelief... then all of the delusional thinkers catch on and embellish at will. Oh and then the lynch mob! Doesn't take much circumstantial evidence to get weak minded folks together for a meeting in the middle of the night. Really only takes fear!

Much like the rumors of the dinar! Every little thing that makes someone go hmmm is now circumstantial evidence that something is going on and then people jump in and support them - knowing it's meaningless, but they say good post, i wondered also!!

Every little story you've mentioned has another side. But you need a judge to decipher for you.... that's incredibly weak my man! If I believed as heavy as you do, as a birther, NO judge can tell me differently. Therefore, you could never apologize for thinking your way and I wouldn't ask you to - there will always be your kind.

BTW; you can't ask my siblings today which hospital I was born in! Is that a knock on my history of birth or a weakness of my family cohesiveness?

We can't sell each other so can we all just be friends?

Weak again!

============================

Here was an article written back in 2008 by one this country's attonery who is known as the world's foremost constitutional attorney we have.

Al little background on Dr. Edwin Viera, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

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. He is also one of our country’s most eminent constitutional attorneys, having brought four cases that were accepted by the supreme Court and having won three of them. 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 is the world’s most foremost authority about the role of our Constitution as it relates to money and 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, available from 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

Dr. Vieira may be reached at:

P.O. Box 3634,

Manassas, Virginia 20108.

Here is the article he wrote in 2008

OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN

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

October 29, 2008

NewsWithViews.com

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 Hillarious 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.

© 2008 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserved

[divemaster5734]

You young man have no clue who I am.....You are jsut a loud mouth that trolls the interned looking for disparaging information that you can post on this forum....you have a following of folk that have no clue...but then Hitler had a followng too.....Its amazing how folks take a opinion post and try to make it reality....and for you RTrusty....I got my Law Degree from the University of Detrot Law School.....Not Dinar Vets....You have allowed your disdane for the POTUS to cloud your judgement......and every day you come up with a thiesis more laughable then the day before. There is a segment that will always believe what you post because of the disdane for President Obama. Just because you jump up and down on some self appointed crusade against the POTUS, does not make it true. they are at best someone's hypothesis. Regardless of how you spin this, regardless of how often you post this, will not make it true. I would suggest that should you make a profit on IQD.....you might want to take some of that money and go back to school!

No offense, but a law degree just makes you an agent of the king. You sworn priority is to the BAR, your "clients" are secondary. How can you face yourself after telling someone you will do your best when you already know they have no standing, and so don't have a chance. Do you even feel guilty on the way to the bank?

I am glad you may be proficient arguing statutes, but that has nothing to do with actual truth, only imagined wrongs in Admiralty.

I am equally offended by people that act like some degree or certification allows greater status than anyone else.

it certainly does not make your deceptions any more legitimate

Edited July 30, 2011 by divemaster5734

[mojack]

============================

Here was an article written back in 2008 by one this country's attonery who is known as the world's foremost constitutional attorney we have.

Al little background on Dr. Edwin Viera, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

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).

Excuse me my friend partytime; I've found that someone in any position can share your thoughts. It shouldn't be hard to believe that he's a birther, I've been surprised by better. This person has an extensive background in law and arguing the Constitution to HIS interpretation.

Dr. Edwin Viera is an extremist, militia-like, rogue to some point - has written several articles on government and the constitution including articles on President Obama - and again it has no teeth. You have no way of determining a birther's motivation other than it sells news.

You're becoming a cheap read - try credible media once in awhile. anyway, enjoy!

Edited July 30, 2011 by mojack

[Francie26]

IMHO this whole situation screams of racism. Now, I did not see rtrusty say anything about race and I am not accusing him of such. All I am saying is, I have never heard of this birth certificate issue with any other president. I certainly have not researched it, as I have not researched this particular birth certificate issue. That is my point completely. There is no point in researching, because the birthers made a point to bring it to every ones attention. They start out by saying, "this has nothing to do with race". Well, that is like starting a conversation with, "no disrespect, but...". You know it's going to be disrespectful. Don't vote for the cat in 2012....very simple.

GO RV, then BV

I thought we had put the "race" issue to bed regarding this president when so many of us voted for him. ::sigh:: but here it is again. No one ever asked for another president's birth certificate because no other president filled the White House with Chicago thugs who began instantly to claim the authority of a dictator. No other president ever vocally blamed his predecessor for all his flaws and mistakes. No other president ever tried to hide so much of his history from the American people. No other President promised the electorate everything while running for office, but once elected, immediately began hiring czars by the dozens to circumvent congress, using Presidential Orders to circumvent the constitution, and going on a plethora of spending sprees like he was a second Napoleon. Kind of makes us wonder what he is all about, ya' know?

[detroitjazzman]

No offense, but a law degree just makes you an agent of the king. You sworn priority is to the BAR, your "clients" are secondary. How can you face yourself after telling someone you will do your best when you already know they have no standing, and so don't have a chance. Do you even feel guilty on the way to the bank?

I am glad you may be proficient arguing statutes, but that has nothing to do with actual truth, only imagined wrongs in Admiralty.

I am equally offended by people that act like some degree or certification allows greater status than anyone else.

it certainly does not make your deceptions any more legitimate

you go fawck yourself.....thats the problem...you always want to put someone in a box without the mental acuaty to understand what you are talking about....stick to the sand box and leave the mental lifting to those that can actually understand what they read...and FYI I have no clients....I don't practice law.....and I don't go around touting outright lies and BS as being true..and I am equally offended that someone with a fifth grade education trys to engage me on some trumped up assertion with no legitimate understand of what they are talking about. Its obvious to me that the only thing that kept you out of college......High School! Finally....I make no apologies for not being dependant on some RI/RV to discharge my financial obligations...What a Law Degree will do for you......Teach you to understand what you read......and ....how to reason and comprehend what you read....Might try it. and stop believing those cut and paste articles. Peace

[PartyTime]

Excuse me my friend partytime; I've found that someone in any position can share your thoughts. It shouldn't be hard to believe that he's a birther, I've been surprised by better. This person has an extensive background in law and arguing the Constitution to HIS interpretation.

Dr. Edwin Viera is an extremist, militia-like, rogue to some point - has written several articles on government and the constitution including articles on President Obama - and again it has no teeth. You have no way of determining a birther's motivation other than it sells news.

You're becoming a cheap read - try credible media once in awhile. anyway, enjoy!

LOL. Typical response when facts are starring you in the face. When you can't rebut the evidence reduce to name calling and labeling them something else to attempt to discredit them. Sorry but the Alinsky play book has been played to death and doesn't work anymore.

[r65]

OMG, that means I can't hold obie accountable because it's racism?

I REFUSE to allow that moronic argument to stop me from the truth.

I am sorry you are racist, but I am not. The only people promoting that division are the same people making a living because of it.

Get a real job.

So says the sewer tech who put a racist joke about food stamps in another thread.

[divemaster5734]

you go fawck yourself.....thats the problem...you always want to put someone in a box without the mental acuaty to understand what you are talking about....stick to the sand box and leave the mental lifting to those that can actually understand what they read...and FYI I have no clients....I don't practice law.....and I don't go around touting outright lies and BS as being true..and I am equally offended that someone with a fifth grade education trys to engage me on some trumped up assertion with no legitimate understand of what they are talking about. Its obvious to me that the only thing that kept you out of college......High School! Finally....I make no apologies for not being dependant on some RI/RV to discharge my financial obligations...What a Law Degree will do for you......Teach you to understand what you read......and ....how to reason and comprehend what you read....Might try it. and stop believing those cut and paste articles. Peace

I see. you say you have a law degree with a practice implication, and are offended by truth.

Then, without knowing anything at all about me you make derogatory assumptions concerning me.

Can you say hypocrate?

But then, that's what the socialist obummer agenda is all about anyway.

implied grammatical superiority is not intellect, that is pretension.

Pompus Narcissism is also one of their traits.

Thats because for them, truth sucks..

So says the sewer tech who put a racist joke about food stamps in another thread.

Why did you assume I was referring to any particular race?

I never implied anything like that at all.

I honestly believe there is only one race, the HUMAN RACE.

We were all created by God, with rights given by God, not some benevolent government.

I would never post anything racial, ever.

[PartyTime]

No offense, but a law degree just makes you an agent of the king. You sworn priority is to the BAR, your "clients" are secondary. How can you face yourself after telling someone you will do your best when you already know they have no standing, and so don't have a chance. Do you even feel guilty on the way to the bank?

I am glad you may be proficient arguing statutes, but that has nothing to do with actual truth, only imagined wrongs in Admiralty.

I am equally offended by people that act like some degree or certification allows greater status than anyone else.

it certainly does not make your deceptions any more legitimate

Actually, that would be the Queen. They take their oath to the crown.

7 C.J.S.

4 Attorney & Client

His duty is to the courts and the public, NOT to the client,

[DinarMillionaire]

No other resident has ever been asked to produce his LONG FOR BIRTH CERTIFICATE...and NO other president has been pursued to this degree over a campaign of misinformation and lies.

You may be right. But if the Obama "campaign" would quit giving us this "misinformation and lies" he probably wouldn't be "pursued to this degree".

Edited July 30, 2011 by DinarMillionaire

[Francie26]

No offense, but a law degree just makes you an agent of the king. You sworn priority is to the BAR, your "clients" are secondary. How can you face yourself after telling someone you will do your best when you already know they have no standing, and so don't have a chance. Do you even feel guilty on the way to the bank?

I am glad you may be proficient arguing statutes, but that has nothing to do with actual truth, only imagined wrongs in Admiralty.

I am equally offended by people that act like some degree or certification allows greater status than anyone else.

it certainly does not make your deceptions any more legitimate

no more legitimate . . . just more offensive . . .

[divemaster5734]

Actually, that would be the Queen. They take their oath to the crown.

7 C.J.S.

4 Attorney & Client

His duty is to the courts and the public, NOT to the client,

True, until she's gone and Phillip steps in.

Is still the British Accredited Registry, formerly the Aristocratic Registry.

I read somewhere the American Bar is a division of the National Socialist Association.

[ajskj]

You may be right. But if the Obama "campaign" would quit giving us this "misinformation and lies" he probably wouldn't be "pursued to this degree".

The only misinformation and lies have come from the birther camp.

True, until she's gone and Phillip steps in.

Is still the British Accredited Registry, formerly the Aristocratic Registry.

I read somewhere the American Bar is a division of the National Socialist Association.

Philip will NEVER step in. When the Queen is gone, Charles becomes King.

[divemaster5734]

The only misinformation and lies have come from the birther camp.

Oh come on, are you saying it is OK to create this divide when all would be answered if he just released his school and passport records?

Every other candidate already HAS released all those records, only BO refuses to.

"Where there's smoke there's fire" Bo can end this forever, don't you think if his records were legit he would release them? If he did he would completely destroy all the birthers and all the competition.

His poll number are dropping like a rock, if he is being honest, why not finally destroy the right?

[PartyTime]

you go fawck yourself.....thats the problem...you always want to put someone in a box without the mental acuaty to understand what you are talking about....stick to the sand box and leave the mental lifting to those that can actually understand what they read...and FYI I have no clients....I don't practice law.....and I don't go around touting outright lies and BS as being true..and I am equally offended that someone with a fifth grade education trys to engage me on some trumped up assertion with no legitimate understand of what they are talking about. Its obvious to me that the only thing that kept you out of college......High School! Finally....I make no apologies for not being dependant on some RI/RV to discharge my financial obligations...What a Law Degree will do for you......Teach you to understand what you read......and ....how to reason and comprehend what you read....Might try it. and stop believing those cut and paste articles. Peace

Hmmmmmm. Here is a guy supposedly in his 3rd year of college. I can't comment on his writing or comprehension of reading skills, but based on his frame of mind in how he talks and what he thinks I would have to presume this guy would be lucky if he could read **** and Jane. LOL At least he appears to have learned how the government handout programs work. LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7XA2UUpXRk

Edited July 30, 2011 by PartyTime

[ajskj]

Oh come on, are you saying it is OK to create this divide when all would be answered if he just released his school and passport records?What other president has ever released his passport or school records?? Bush Junior released his college transcripts ONLY because he thought it would make him look smarter. He never released his passport records...and there is nothing that they would prove anyway.As for it all going away....aren't you tired of claiming that if he would just do XYZ, this would all go away?? It's just a lie, You guys will NEVER accept him as eligible.

Every other candidate already HAS released all those records, only BO refuses to.Wrong. ONLY Junior Bush released his transcripts. No OTHER president ever has...and NONE have been asked to do so. No OTHER president has ever been asked to release his parents marriage certificate, or his kindergarten records either.

"Where there's smoke there's fire"Not at all...especially when dealing with people who think that if you throw enough crap on the wall, some will stick. Bo can end this forever, don't you think if his records were legit he would release them? If he did he would completely destroy all the birthers and all the competition.He already has destroyed the birthers....you guys just refuse to admit it.

His poll number are dropping like a rock, if he is being honest, why not finally destroy the right?So are the republicans. It has to do with the budget and is a temporary drop.