Just kidding. That’s what makes this place so interesting.

And oh, BTW, Italian men might think both of us look “good” in a mini. They do know how to appreciate the “aging wine”, so to speak.

In the meantime, I’m quite sure our “22″ hits – laughable considering this post is at 6415 times, and 67 so far today – will live just fine without CTN. The pity is that, prior to to lemming dive over the cliff, CTN had some value.

Now I have to say, shame, shame. Apparently you have given up refuting anything Mata or Aye attempted to explain to you so you resort to insults. Our legal system grinds slowly, until there is something we can get behind there is no sense in fighting with people that will eventually be on your side should the courts demand Obama produce the documents.

We aren’t there yet, all the rabble rousing across the net won’t make things happen. Patience is a virtue, use it.

CTN… I liked you in the above posts because you were more rational, and didn’t make abject prounouncments such as:

The tragedy of it all is that a man, who is demonstrably NOT a natural born citizen (his own website conceded that he was born a subject of the King of Britain), has hijacked our White House and is overtly pandering to radical Islam while he is overtly subverting our economy. Saul Alinsky is so happy he’s wetting his grave.

You want to know why this makes me rabid? I’ll repeat it one more time.

You have *no* idea how it riles me when you force me to defend Obama!

You have taken the unproven statements by Berg and Keyes, accepted them as fact, ignored the defendants/respondents due process rights, and in one short paragraph taken them to the extreme.

This extreme BS puts me in the position of having to stand on our Constitutional rights to legal recourse and defense against accusations of state or individuals in civil or criminal courts… and defend the bastard.

Knock it off. I don’t even like the man in the WH. But I do like our system. However flawed.

Berg v Obama:

Plaintiff: PHILIP J. BERG
Defendant: BARACK OBAMA, THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION and DOES 1-50 INCLUSIVE

This isn’t a criminal proceeding. It’s a civil proceeding. They have plaintiff (also called petitioners) and defendants (also called Respondents), and verdicts of guilty with judicial relief and compensation in civil proceedings as well. Doh…

Don’t like the use of the word “defendant”? Suggest you contact docket sites like above and tell them how to do their job because it doesn’t suit your chosen language.

“I have read both Berg’s various brief filings and followed his progress thru the SCOUTS, and Keyes.”

I’ll take the criticism of this sentence not being well constructed, and a typo on SCOTUS. However I have had Berg’s site ObamaCrimes bookmarked since near the beginning, read his court briefs, followed his progress thru to present. Keyes has not gone anywhere in the system yet. Nor does Keyes provide any updates on the status on his website. Frankly, his case is far more interesting.

SCOTUS did not address Keyes, but Berg. And it did not address the arguments of the case, but only reviewed… as SCOTUS can only do on his special appeal… Berg’s emergency request for a Stay of electoral count and temporary injunction until his writ of certorari could be resolved in the federal courts. That federal case was dismissed by the judge saying Berg did not have the proper standing. Berg also has three other cases going that I know of. He’s no where near done yet.

Therefore SCOTUS did not toss out, nor hear any evidence and arguments that had anything to do with Obama’s birth. Therefore it is you who is “being completely ignorant and incompetent” and you who is “demonstrably dishonest”.

First, you are arguing that the US Constitution grants all candidates for the office of POTUS the presumption of “natural born citizenship,” and that the US Constitution requires us to honor this presumption.

I didn’t argue that at all. Apparently your comprehension of how legal recourse works, and how any issue (like the eligibility of a candidate) is resolved, is only slightly less than your ability to read.

Second, you are arguing that a concession of fact is not a fact until the courts determine it’s a fact.

Again, not what I argued. You read a brief with arguments and described evidence (without seeing or hearing that evidence). You decided it was “fact”. The DEFENDANTS named in the case have not presented counter arguments. Instead they have filed various motions for dismissal, who’s legal precedents obviously ran more viable with the judge than did the plaintiff’s. Now, as a citizen, you have the full right to determine that one legal side of an argument is wrong, and the other right. But you’re not the judge… yet you want to be the judge, the jury and the executioner. *That* is my argument.

Third, you are arguing that (due) process overrides free speech.

Again, that is not even close to what I am arguing. See above. You can say anything you like. I’m not forced to listen to it, nor do I have to agree. I’ll listen to what a judge has to say when it gets ahold of the Keyes lawsuit, that was only filed fall of last year. It is no where close to making it to the SCOTUS docket.

I may not agree with a judge’s decision *not* to hear the case based on Berg’s standing. But I damn will respect our due process enough to encourage the appeal process all the way to the Supreme’s, and live with their decision. I didn’t like their Boumediene decision. In fact there’s a lot of SCOTUS opinions I think suck the big one. But I respect the process, and live with the results.

Now, this is my last response to your BS. Frankly, it was libertarian long-winded, blow hards like you – the types who live by “the meaning of “is”… is” type debates – who made it quite pleasant for me to discard my Libertarian registration a long time ago. You’re boring, repetative, and a pompous, arrogant windbag. But there plenty of places other than FA who will welcome your 24/7 rant on this.

Buh bye. Tata. and au revoir.

THE STATE HAS NOT CHARGED ANYONE WITH A CRIME, THEREFORE THERE IS NO DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE, CONTRA YOUR INSISTENCE, AND THEREFORE NO ONE ACCORDS ANYONE A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.

Now, that right there my friends is a stunning example of concentrated stupid.

CTN, let me put it in very succinctly, in short sentences, a manner that even you might possibly be able to follow.

The person who files a civil suit is the Plaintiff, or in this case, Petitioner.

The person who has a civil suit filed against them is the Defendant.

The Plaintiff, by bringing the case, is “charging” the Defendant.

Of course there is a presumption of innocence for the Defendant, even in a civil suit.

Otherwise, why is the burden of a “proponderance of evidence” placed on the Plaintiff in order to prevail?

That’s right. Because the Defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

If things were as you claim them to be, then the Defendant would have that burden.

Sorry, epic FAIL for you.

You come trotting in here waving your claims around, scattering crumbs on the carpet, insulting the intelligence of your hosts when it is you, sir, who is clueless about the most basic premises and machinations of the US legal system.

When you cannot even get the basics of presumption of innocence straight, then anyone with half the brains of a goose knows to use caution when it comes to the rest of your drivel.

You’re a mental midget among giants here.

At the moment you’re in grave danger of being squashed.

You can see another point of inconsistency on your part in comment #68, where you actually treated me with respect:

http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/11/15/alan-keyes-sues-obama-to-produce-original-full-length-birth-certificate/#comment-132536

I have not changed my position one bit since then; apparently, however, you have changed yours, which is your right. I don’t know how to account for your rabid tone, however, which leads me to believe that something else is going on here.

Let me state it again, very succinctly, in a manner that you might be able to follow.

THE STATE HAS NOT CHARGED ANYONE WITH A CRIME, THEREFORE THERE IS NO DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE, CONTRA YOUR INSISTENCE, AND THEREFORE NO ONE ACCORDS ANYONE A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.

Once you get past this simple point, you may begin to understand that you are trying to make three arguments:

First, you are arguing that the US Constitution grants all candidates for the office of POTUS the presumption of “natural born citizenship,” and that the US Constitution requires us to honor this presumption. Of course, this is absurd on its face and defies state and federal law. Moreover, you cannot substantiate your position, which probably accounts for your shrill name-calling.

Second, you are arguing that a concession of fact is not a fact until the courts determine it’s a fact. For example, when Obama conceded dual citizenship (at best) on his website, you believe that his concession is not fact proper until the court affirms it. But what if the court never affirms it, which may likely be the case, does this mean he was never a citizen of Great Britain? Of course not. It simply means that the courts have refused to hear this case.

Third, you are arguing that (due) process overrides free speech. Check that. You’re arguing that your flawed understanding of process entitles you to voice your opinion, but it proscribes those of us who disagree with you from voicing our opinion. As with the previous two arguments, however, you have grounded your argument in self-righteous fiction.

Finally, let me note your incredible inconsistency, which leads me to believe that you are not only ignorant, but dishonest. Yesterday you wrote, “I have not heard it has been withdrawn, nor have I heard that it has come before a judge for a hearing yet, marbleblast. The latest news I see is from a Dec 8th, 2008 interview with Keyes by Essence magazine with Cynthia Gordy. He provides no status update on the lawsuit.”

But today you insist, “I have read both Berg’s various brief filings and followed his progress thru the SCOUTS, and Keyes.”

This is an example of a contradiction. Both statements cannot be true. Either December 8, 2008, is your cutoff and you are unaware of the status of the Keyes suit, or you have followed both cases through SCOTUS (not SCOUTS). And if you had followed either case, you would know that SCOTUS tossed both of them last month.

Therefore, I am happy to end this exchange with you, because in addition to being completely ignorant and incompetent, you are demonstrably dishonest.

So let’s set your pompous ass straight, and point out your very narrow focused arrogance, shall we? I more than understand the “facts” as you (actually Berg and Keyes) lay them out. I have read both Berg’s various brief filings and followed his progress thru the SCOUTS, and Keyes. Tho technically what you call “facts” are considered evidence and points of argument in the various lawsuit briefs. Only the judge… if they hear the case… will decide if they are “facts”.

Personally, I think these points and evidence (including those that cannot be admitted) have validity and *should* be heard. So in principle, I agree with you. These lawsuits should be heard, and a determination made… or Obama produces the proper documents to put this to rest. And no, I don’t like that he spends more cash to halt these suits than cleaning up on the issue.

But that’s not the point.

Where I do *not* agree with you is your predetermination that the evidence is decided and inarguable. In our Constitution, the only way to resolve a challenge to a candidate’s eligibility is thru the courts. Also, in our judicial system, there is still supposed to be the semblence of innocence until proven guilty.

You have abandoned both to jump on conspiracy bandwagon. And worse yet, you are waving a banner of “The Constitution!” in order to behave in the exact antithesis laid out by that same document for legal recourse. You shove this elementary argument in our faces, completely blind to your own disrespect to the two main principles in our nation’s system.

So don’t be lecturing *me* about respect for the Constitution… when it is *you* who is not patient enough to allow the due process to run it’s course. And it is *you* who has decided the defendant is guilty before judicial judgment.

So take your single focused BS arguments back to the Vieira, libertarian and extreme right wing forums who want to sit around to moan and groan about this daily and endlessly. Like I said, when the courts make a decision, I’ll speak my peace, and it just may surprise you as to what I have to say. Until then, you’re all just stroking each other’s pompous and ignorant fury… while telling yourselves you have “respect” for the Constitution and the separation of powers.

Magnitude of ignorance, indeed. You and your impatient buds, subtly advocating rebellion, are the poster children for brainwashed ignorants, placing the quest above the process.

Blow it out your ear. You are invisible to me on this forum, as quite a few of your bretheren and sisters have become when you slide over the deep edge.

I am afraid that you have confused me for someone such as yourself, that is, someone who does not understand the facts of this case. Therefore, in the interest of honesty, let me correct some of your errors so that you may understand the actual issues at stake.

FACT: the question of Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of POTUS pursuant to the terms of the US Constitution has nothing to do with “innocent until proven guilty,” contra your assertion (by the way, our legal system is grounded in a presumption of innocence, which is not the same as innocence per se). No one has charged anyone with a crime and no one has asserted guilt; hence the civil actions.

FACT: the question of Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of POTUS pursuant to the terms of the US Constitution is not a matter of process, contra your assertion. Yes, process is required in order to hold him accountable, i.e. to enforce the strict terms of the Constitution, but process cannot change the historical fact of his natural birth.

FACT: the founding fathers placed the “natural born citizen” stipulation in our charter document in order to prevent a man born into divided loyalties from hijacking the Executive Branch. Their worst fear was that a dual citizen of the US and of Britain (America’s principal enemy at that time) would sit in the White House.

FACT: Obama’s own website declared that his father was a British citizen when he sired Obama Jr. and consequently he conferred British citizenship on his son at birth. This means that even if Obama was born in the USA to a mother of US citizenship, his citizenship was dual, or divided:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”
http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

FACT: no one knows where Obama was born and he has refused to answer the question.

FACT: if Obama ever possessed “natural born citizenship” (which remains unknown), no one knows if he ever renounced it in order to become naturalized in Indonesia, where he held citizenship for 7 years.

MataHarley, these are facts, and neither your opinion nor mine will change them. Moreover, if there are only four justices on SCOTUS who are willing to hear the case, then the other five have not changed the facts. They have simply voted thumbs down, for whatever reason, though they cast doubts on themselves because their chief duty is to interpret and uphold the Constitution and this case could be easily resolved if Obama produced proof of his natural born citizenship. (And don’t forget that he is a constitutional attorney who earned his JD at Harvard.)

Finally, I invite you to abandon the conspiracy of idiots, who obviously have you bent out of shape, and to join those of us who respect our Constitution. This will require that you put aside your ignorant preconceptions, as well as your shrill ad hominems, but you’ll be the better for it.

And take a moment to read this piece, written by a constitutional scholar who has actually argued cases before SCOTUS:

http://newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

It’s a good starting point for you to begin understanding the magnitude of your ignorance.