The October Surprise

[No_Fear]

By definition, a conclusion cannot be a question. Also, by definition, you made a request (not a question)

 

 

 

 

I make no excuses. Why excuse me? Oh and just for your information, Narcolepsy is defined as falling asleep at random... not falling asleep because you're bored. Furthermore, the symptoms of Insomnia are actually inclusive to Narcolepsy. I would have thought that you would know that, considering that you're ever so qualified to make psychological diagnoses based on internet forum emoticons.

 

Whatever! Did you have to get out your dictionary to come up with all those definitions? :shades:

[No_Fear]

he rarely offers anything constructive.....he likes to stir the pot.....

 

 

I think is "deal" is trying to get everyone off topic.

[No_Fear]

"Vice presidential Candidate filing lawsuit against Obama

Posted on November 2nd, 2008 by admin

 

Wiley S. Drake, Sr. wileydrake@hotmail.com

 

Vice presidential Candidate Wiley S. Drake Sr. to file in court asking to

de-certify Barack Obama because he has refused to release proof of being a Natural Born Citizen, thereby disqualifying Obama in his bid for the Office of President.

 

The recent Lawsuit in Washington State demanding their Secretary of State to vet the citizenship credentials of Barack Obama has spawned a slew of similar suits with new lawsuits filed and/or prepared in WA, FL, NC, CO, CA, OH, FL, CT, GA, TX, MI. Related lawsuits HI, US District.

 

As part of this effort, this group of citizens from states across the union made an outreach to the whole presidential slate asking each candidate for president and vice president to offer up a certified copy of their birth certificates and any related candidate declarations to be placed in a library made available to the public via a non-partisan web site.

 

At least one VP candidate Wiley S. Drake Sr. went the next step and agreed to file a lawsuit of his own to demand the disqualification of Barack Obama unless he can prove status as a ”Natural Born Citizen” as the constitution and federal statues demand and define.

 

In another unrelated action, though also aimed at forcing Obama to release proof or step down, 24 potential Electoral College electors are filing action Monday morning in court also demanding proof. A call is herein being issued to any elector in any state, especially democrat electors who would like to join that effort. Electors interested in adding their name to this lawsuit can contact Mr. Marquis who will put you in contact with the attorney handling that case.

[Bored of Pisteon]

Keep grasping at straws gentlemen.

 

Martin fails to address the fact that the Birth Announcement was made in the Honolulu paper in the August 13, 1961 edition. All part of some grand conspiracy I suppose.

 

Assuming that the current trend continues, Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States of America. It is in everyone's best interest that he has a successful administration.

 

Don't bet on it...

[Bored of Pisteon]

"This story is inactive."

 

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

 

Well I'm kinda glad I had the rare priveledge of viewing those links and his press conference before they got "removed" Gee... I WONDER WHY?

[NickF1011]

Well I'm kinda glad I had the rare priveledge of viewing those links and his press conference before they got "removed" Gee... I WONDER WHY?

 

Yeah, crank the Conspirometer up to '11'. :rolleyes:

[Versa-Tech]

Well I'm kinda glad I had the rare priveledge of viewing those links and his press conference before they got "removed" Gee... I WONDER WHY?

I agree. I saw it too. He does have a point that Obama refuses to show the birth certificate.

 

I don't know what the real facts are, but judging (psychologically) from the way he kept repeating his points, I don't think he believes much in his case. A person that has confidence in the validity of their own statement's will naturally assume that others will believe them the first time. When a person is insecure in the validity of there statements he/she will naturally repeat them over and over to convince whoever it is that they are trying to address. In almost every point he made in that "press conference" fingers, he must have repeated it twice later on ;even when said point didn't relate to the subject he was currently speaking of.

 

On a side note, did you notice how he kept [repeatedly] using the quote from Obama's grandmother ("I was there when he was born") as evidence against his natural-born citizenship. She said she was present when he was born, not that she was present when he was born in Kenya. Is it really that far-fetched that she could have traveled to the US to help his mother in the later stages of pregnancy and witnessed the birth in Hawaii. I don't know. But it's a lot less far-fetched than his case.

[Len_A]

I have a stupid question, and maybe to those well versed in the law it's asking about the obvious, but in general, in a lawsuit, doesn't the "burden of proof" fall on the plaintiff, not the defendant? The defendant doesn't necessarily have to disprove anything - the plaintiff has to show, not by an absolute standard of proof, but by a preponderance of the evidence, that they (the plaintiff) have made their case. Or do I have it wrong? If the plaintiff only makes implications with out some measure of proof, the defendant doesn't have to really answer anything, do they?

[No_Fear]

You may be able to get some insight into this case by checking this website. Lots of reading, but may help answer some of your questions.

 

http://www.americasright.com/

[Versa-Tech]

I have a stupid question, and maybe to those well versed in the law it's asking about the obvious, but in general, in a lawsuit, doesn't the "burden of proof" fall on the plaintiff, not the defendant? The defendant doesn't necessarily have to disprove anything - the plaintiff has to show, not by an absolute standard of proof, but by a preponderance of the evidence, that they (the plaintiff) have made their case. Or do I have it wrong? If the plaintiff only makes implications with out some measure of proof, the defendant doesn't have to really answer anything, do they?

 

You are absolutely correct Sir.

 

I could benefit greatly if I was as humble as you. That has to be one of the smartest (and best articulated) "stupid question"s I have ever heard.

 

Two points

Edited November 2, 2008 by Versa-Tech

[Versa-Tech]

You may be able to get some insight into this case by checking this website. Lots of reading, but may help answer some of your questions.

 

http://www.americasright.com/

:redcard: WOW :redcard: .

 

I have never heard that sound-clip (video at the top of the page). I knew that he was socialist, but I had no idea that he actually stated a plan to destroy peoples lives. What was even more scathing was how cold his tone was when he said it. Has the mainstream media covered this?

 

PS. I'll get back to you on my opinion of the text. It is as you said "Lots of reading"

[RangerM]

:redcard: WOW :redcard: .

 

I have never heard that sound-clip (video at the top of the page). I knew that he was socialist, but I had no idea that he actually stated a plan to destroy peoples lives. What was even more scathing was how cold his tone was when he said it. Has the mainstream media covered this?

 

PS. I'll get back to you on my opinion of the text. It is as you said "Lots of reading"

 

It's been widely circulated for some time, although the only "mainstream" source I've ever seen it before is Drudge. (and that was today!)

 

You can bet it'll be widely played in Western PA. The Coal industry is very important there and other states.

[No_Fear]

:redcard: WOW :redcard: .

 

I have never heard that sound-clip (video at the top of the page). I knew that he was socialist, but I had no idea that he actually stated a plan to destroy peoples lives. What was even more scathing was how cold his tone was when he said it. Has the mainstream media covered this?

 

PS. I'll get back to you on my opinion of the text. It is as you said "Lots of reading"

 

 

Well, I think Sarah Palin has been hitting him on it recently, but she doesn't get much positive coverage from the mainstream media. A previous link posted by Dale143 is also a pretty good look into this case and what the thinking seems to be as far as the merits of the case and also discusses why some still think that Obama and the DNC need to produce his birth certificate. Forensic experts have checked the birth certificates he has submitted to online fact checking websites and they have been proven to be "doctored" and if that's the case why would he not want his real birth certificate to be released? Something just doesn't add up.

 

If you haven't already, read the timeline that was posted previously. Here's the link posted by Dale143

 

http://www.colony14.net/id41.html

 

You'll have lots of reading to do and I'll look forward to hearing your opinion. Isn't it nice to have the freedom to come here and offer up our opinions, even though we sometimes have to put up with a little taunting and teasing?

 

I'd like to think that Phil Berg's case has some merit, because there needs to be some ruling as to who has "standing" to contest the credentials of anyone wanting to hold the highest office of this great nation. I'm just not sure that he has all his "ducks in a row" when it comes to the evidence he needs to prove his case. As for the attorney who filed in Hawaii, I think the judge there must have felt he has some merit to his case as well, or he wouldn't have agreed to hear it on Nov. 14th. Those are just my thoughts and I'm probably all wrong.

 

When I started this thread I had no idea that it would cause such a firestorm, but I must say it has been interesting and although I have no idea how things will turn out, whether for good or bad, it continues to be a real soap opera.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Please elaborate....

 

 

Gladly, while it would seem self evident, our counrty is in the most difficult times in more than two generations. A failed administration benefits no one except a small group of partisans who would rather see the country go down in flames so they can make some political hay in 4 years.

 

Much like the days following 9/11, when Democrats Independents and Republicans worked toward common purpose, we must pull together now and work for a better future. As Ben Franklin said "We must hang together or we will most assuredly hang separately".

 

Obama must reach out to Republicans as well. The challenges we face are too great for one party alone to handle. Clinton included Republicans in his Cabinet and involved the opposing party in discussions. Obama should follow that example and avoid W' example of dictating on a take it or leave it basis. Obama's reputation as a consensus builder and his study of Abraham Lincoln's presidency should show the way.

[RangerM]

Gladly, while it would seem self evident, our counrty is in the most difficult times in more than two generations. A failed administration benefits no one except a small group of partisans who would rather see the country go down in flames so they can make some political hay in 4 years.

 

Much like the days following 9/11, when Democrats Independents and Republicans worked toward common purpose, we must pull together now and work for a better future. As Ben Franklin said "We must hang together or we will most assuredly hang separately".

 

Obama must reach out to Republicans as well. The challenges we face are too great for one party alone to handle. Clinton included Republicans in his Cabinet and involved the opposing party in discussions. Obama should follow that example and avoid W' example of dictating on a take it or leave it basis. Obama's reputation as a consensus builder and his study of Abraham Lincoln's presidency should show the way.

 

I can appreciate your point of view, however in an Obama Presidency, I'd feel much better if the House or Senate were Republican-controlled. Somehow I don't see Rahm Emanuel (as Chief-of-Staff), Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid feeling the bipartisanship.

[Versa-Tech]

I can appreciate your point of view, however in an Obama Presidency, I'd feel much better if the House or Senate were Republican-controlled. Somehow I don't see Rahm Emanuel (as Chief-of-Staff), Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid feeling the bipartisanship.

I agree. However, I don't see McCain's likely picks conducting themselves any different.

[RangerM]

I agree. However, I don't see McCain's likely picks conducting themselves any different.

 

Hard to say. Many on the right aren't terribly fond of McCain, so what loyalties McCain may have are his own.

[napfirst]

Gladly, while it would seem self evident, our counrty is in the most difficult times in more than two generations. A failed administration benefits no one except a small group of partisans who would rather see the country go down in flames so they can make some political hay in 4 years.

 

Much like the days following 9/11, when Democrats Independents and Republicans worked toward common purpose, we must pull together now and work for a better future. As Ben Franklin said "We must hang together or we will most assuredly hang separately".

 

Obama must reach out to Republicans as well. The challenges we face are too great for one party alone to handle. Clinton included Republicans in his Cabinet and involved the opposing party in discussions. Obama should follow that example and avoid W' example of dictating on a take it or leave it basis. Obama's reputation as a consensus builder and his study of Abraham Lincoln's presidency should show the way.

You are kidding..right?....who is this small group of partisans you are referring to?.....and please enlighten me as to the level of cooperation, as you see it, that has been given to this administration since the '06 elections...if barry does in fact win this election I, like Ranger would hate to see a government totally controlled by the dems...these Senate majorities have given us "Great Society" and the beginnings of the break down of the black family with the introduction of welfare system......

[Mark B. Morrow]

I have a stupid question, and maybe to those well versed in the law it's asking about the obvious, but in general, in a lawsuit, doesn't the "burden of proof" fall on the plaintiff, not the defendant? The defendant doesn't necessarily have to disprove anything - the plaintiff has to show, not by an absolute standard of proof, but by a preponderance of the evidence, that they (the plaintiff) have made their case. Or do I have it wrong? If the plaintiff only makes implications with out some measure of proof, the defendant doesn't have to really answer anything, do they?

 

 

You are correct. A defamation suit has a couple of additional wrikles. First, Truth of the assertion claimed to be defamatory is an absolute defense. Second in cases involving "Public Figures" requires proof of malice, i.e prior knowledge that the assertion was false. Google NY Times v. Sullivan. Martin's "documentary" shown on Hannity and his crusade would likely put him in the Public Figure catagory. Once it is established that Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore is elegible to be President, Martin's primary premise is debunked.

 

No one gets their "Original" Birth Certificate. What you get is a certified copy attested to by the Vital Records Department. That is what FactCheck reviewed. Certified copies have a raised seal from the issuing authority. The one FactCheck reviewed was dated June 6, 2007. I receive these documents often in my Estate and Adoption cases.

 

Even if he were correct, Martin might have a hard time proving damages. Martin is a famous virulent anti-semite and has filed numerous frivolous lawsuits. He has been estopped from filing further suits in some courts without prior permission. He graduated from law school but was denied admission to practice. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/polit...3martin.html?bl

 

Martin is not a sympathetic Plaintiff. He might have a very hard time showing that his reputation has been damaged beyond the damage he himself has done. There have been several defamation suits where the jury has awarded a few cents in damages.

 

If some people want to believe in Martin's nonsense, have at it.

[retro-man]

When I started this thread I had no idea that it would cause such a firestorm, but I must say it has been interesting and although I have no idea how things will turn out, whether for good or bad, it continues to be a real soap opera.

This is the first election when I've ever gone out and attended a Caucus (I have heard numerous other people say the same), and the first when I've ever formed the thought to spend election night at a Sports bar eating buffalo wings, drinking beer, and watching the big screen. I thought that might be a bad thing - that this is indeed a soap opera. But on second thought, I think it's something more.

 

At the caucus, I saw many familiar faces - neighbors engaged in spirited discussion with one another, exchanging views. I have the same impulse to spend election night at a public place - with members of my community. This election affects us all. This is the most important election of our generation. Tell you what - if you want to pray, instead of praying for this person or that person to win, pray for the future of our country and the people in it. Pull whatever lever your conscience leads you to pull in the privacy of Caesar's voting booth - but when you pray, pray for the country. All of it.

[Mark B. Morrow]

You are kidding..right?....who is this small group of partisans you are referring to?.....and please enlighten me as to the level of cooperation, as you see it, that has been given to this administration since the '06 elections...if barry does in fact win this election I, like Ranger would hate to see a government totally controlled by the dems...these Senate majorities have given us "Great Society" and the beginnings of the break down of the black family with the introduction of welfare system......

 

 

There has been very little accomodation given to W since the Democrats took a bare majority of the Senate in January of '07. That can be traced directly to the actions of Bush and the Congressional Republicans fron 2000 to 2006 who marginalized the opposition, locking the Dems out of decision making with the exception of legislation and appointments blocked by filibuster. The Republicans under Tom Delay, Dennis Hastert and Bill Frish were trying to establish a permanent Republican majority and basically told the Dems their input was not welcome.

 

The Republicans even considered a "Nuclear Option" to prevent filibusters. Good thing for them it didn't pass or the Republicans might be on the losing side of their own legislation. If you are so against single party rule, where was your outrage over W's first term where he didn't veto a single bloated spending bill?

 

I would hope the Democrats will do better under Obama than the Republicans did under W.

 

Check your facts on the Great Society Programs. They were passed with lots of Republican votes. In fact the entire Civil Rights agenda would not have been possible without strong Republican support since many of the Southern Democrats of the time were steadfastly against it. Ironically many of those Democrats of the early '60s became Republicans as the party turned sharply to the right. Nixon's "Southern Strategy" bacame the template for Reagan's victory in 1980.

Edited November 3, 2008 by Mark B. Morrow

[No_Fear]

It's been widely circulated for some time, although the only "mainstream" source I've ever seen it before is Drudge. (and that was today!)

 

You can bet it'll be widely played in Western PA. The Coal industry is very important there and other states.

 

Yes, this is just one more reason we don't need Obama. Check out this video.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ

[Roadtrip]

There has been very little accomodation given to W since the Democrats took a bare majority of the Senate in January of '07. That can be traced directly to the actions of Bush and the Congressional Republicans fron 2000 to 2006 who marginalized the opposition, locking the Dems out of decision making with the exception of legislation and appointments blocked by filibuster. The Republicans under Tom Delay, Dennis Hastert and Bill Frish were trying to establish a permanent Republican majority and basically told the Dems their input was not welcome.

 

The Republicans even considered a "Nuclear Option" to prevent filibusters. Good thing for them it didn't pass or the Republicans might be on the losing side of their own legislation. If you are so against single party rule, where was your outrage over W's first term where he didn't veto a single bloated spending bill?

 

I would hope the Democrats will do better under Obama than the Republicans did under W.

 

Check your facts on the Great Society Programs. They were passed with lots of Republican votes. In fact the entire Civil Rights agenda would not have been possible without strong Republican support since many of the Southern Democrats of the time were steadfastly against it. Ironically many of those Democrats of the early '60s became Republicans as the party turned sharply to the right. Nixon's "Southern Strategy" bacame the template for Reagan's victory in 1980.

 

To say that Bush and the Congressional Republicans locked the Democrats out from "decision making" (a more accurate phrase is policy making) from 2000 to 2006 is incorrect, and not just because Bush didn't take office until January 2001.

 

The fact is, Bush spent 18 months lobbying Congress (as well as the U.N. and U.S. allies) for their support in the runup to the Iraq war. Surprisingly, 29 Senate Democrats voted for, and 21 against the measure. Even more interestingly:

The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.

Evidently, more Democrats were engaged and not "locked out" when it came to the current Iraq war, than in 1990, in voting for the Gulf War, when Democrats had a majority in the Senate.

 

Bush later spent upwards of 18 months lobbying on Social Security reform - and he is the first president ever to address this issue. The Democrats know that Social Security (along with Medicaire and Medicaide) will bankrupt this country in the not-too-distant future. (The Social Security Administration itself admits that it will be insolvent by 2017.) Yet the Democrats stonewalled any serious discussion of reform for the simple partisan reason that they didn't want to allow Bush to take credit for reforming what they know is a broken program.

 

House Speaker Pelosi made clear her partisanship when she lashed out against the Republicans before the first vote for the bail-out bill, with nary a mention of the CRA and the Democrats' support of it, nor the Democrats in the House Banking Committee's recent insistence that Fanny and Freddie are alright. No, according to Pelosi, this crisis is all the Republicans' fault.

 

The Democrats will run wild under Obama, and, for the most part, give him everything he wants. After all, many, if not most of these politicians (and Obama) are beholden to the moveon.org, dailykos, and the environmental-activist crowd. Should the House gain a significant number of seats and the Senate a filibuster-proof majority, this country under Obama will be forever changed. This liberal supermajority couldn't care less what people on the other side of the aisle want. As Barack Obama himself said, "This is our moment."

 

"Change" is coming, alright.

 

God help us.

[Savetheplanet]

To say that Bush and the Congressional Republicans locked the Democrats out from "decision making" (a more accurate phrase is policy making) from 2000 to 2006 is incorrect, and not just because Bush didn't take office until January 2001.

 

The fact is, Bush spent 18 months lobbying Congress (as well as the U.N. and U.S. allies) for their support in the runup to the Iraq war. Surprisingly, 29 Senate Democrats voted for, and 21 against the measure. Even more interestingly:

The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.

Evidently, more Democrats were engaged and not "locked out" when it came to the current Iraq war, than in 1990, in voting for the Gulf War, when Democrats had a majority in the Senate.

 

Bush later spent upwards of 18 months lobbying on Social Security reform - and he is the first president ever to address this issue. The Democrats know that Social Security (along with Medicaire and Medicaide) will bankrupt this country in the not-too-distant future. (The Social Security Administration itself admits that it will be insolvent by 2017.) Yet the Democrats stonewalled any serious discussion of reform for the simple partisan reason that they didn't want to allow Bush to take credit for reforming what they know is a broken program.

 

House Speaker Pelosi made clear her partisanship when she lashed out against the Republicans before the first vote for the bail-out bill, with nary a mention of the CRA and the Democrats' support of it, nor the Democrats in the House Banking Committee's recent insistence that Fanny and Freddie are alright. No, according to Pelosi, this crisis is all the Republicans' fault.

 

The Democrats will run wild under Obama, and, for the most part, give him everything he wants. After all, many, if not most of these politicians (and Obama) are beholden to the moveon.org, dailykos, and the environmental-activist crowd. Should the House gain a significant number of seats and the Senate a filibuster-proof majority, this country under Obama will be forever changed. This liberal supermajority couldn't care less what people on the other side of the aisle want. As Barack Obama himself said, "This is our moment."

 

"Change" is coming, alright.

 

God help us.

 

 

There is no invisible sky god, now open up that wallet and pay up for all those years of gluttony and over consumption.

[RangerM]

There is no invisible sky god, now open up that wallet and pay up for all those years of gluttony and over consumption.

 

Savetheplanet, meet RaZor. RaZor, may I introduce Savetheplanet?