"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
snip-


Odd then that you wholly believe the verbal utterances of a Democrat,
but consider the postings from me..to be lies.

And yet you have no evidence one way or another to doubt what Ive
posted..but the evidence against Obama is large and overpowering.

VBG


Gunner,
The real problem is that the evidence *isn't* overpowering. What it
appears to be, and most likely is ------is typical political
bull****---whereby those with an agenda hope to discredit those with which
they don't agree. That's why it borders on the impossible for anyone,
including you, to be properly advised. You can't sort what is truth from
fiction, just as my neighbor can't sort what is truth from fiction---but
each of you support what you *want* to believe, for what ever reason.
That doesn't make it true----and indications are that the situation with
Obama certainly aren't. I don't buy the argument that a judge wouldn't
want to be responsible for his ouster-----and, in fact, would think that it
would be a feather in the cap of any judge that did, indeed, dispose of a
person that had fraudulently wrangled a position of power in the government.

Any yet Obama remains our president.

I wonder why?

Harold

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 09:55:49 GMT, "Harold & Susan Vordos"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
snip-


Odd then that you wholly believe the verbal utterances of a Democrat,
but consider the postings from me..to be lies.

And yet you have no evidence one way or another to doubt what Ive
posted..but the evidence against Obama is large and overpowering.

VBG


Gunner,
The real problem is that the evidence *isn't* overpowering. What it
appears to be, and most likely is ------is typical political
bull****---whereby those with an agenda hope to discredit those with which
they don't agree. That's why it borders on the impossible for anyone,
including you, to be properly advised. You can't sort what is truth from
fiction, just as my neighbor can't sort what is truth from fiction---but
each of you support what you *want* to believe, for what ever reason.
That doesn't make it true----and indications are that the situation with
Obama certainly aren't. I don't buy the argument that a judge wouldn't
want to be responsible for his ouster-----and, in fact, would think that it
would be a feather in the cap of any judge that did, indeed, dispose of a
person that had fraudulently wrangled a position of power in the government.

Any yet Obama remains our president.

I wonder why?

Harold

Your opinion is noted.

As is the fact that the Whitehouse has released an obviously fraudulant
birth cert..and the Department of Records in Hawaii has admitted there
is no birth cert..and then claimed it cant be shown without the
permission of the person named on it.

If the Obama released an actual birth cert..why cant the original be
examined by a non partisan group of experts?

But go ahead and straddle that fence while keeping your blindered eyes
on the horizon. If it works for you...it works for you.

Now..Ive got a nice big lake in Arizona Id be really happy to sell you
cheap. Its called Lake Atlantis and Ill sell it to you for a pitance.
But only to you because you are a man of obvious distinction.

As for ignoring the possiblity of a major ..a monumental crime having
been committed involving fraud, forgery, the death of innocents and the
decimation of our nation...hey..thats up to you.

Just be careful that fence doesnt rub your nuts raw.

Gunner

--
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry
capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an
Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense
and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have
such a man for their? president.. Blaming the prince of the
fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of
fools that made him their prince".

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 20:00:45 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:44:51 +0700, john B.
wrote:



Given the Republican's apparent efforts to block whatever the
President does it is logical to think that if there was any real doubt
that he was unqualified to serve that they would not have been all
over it. But they haven't.

If, during the primaries, it could have been proved that he was
ineligible to serve how much would the Clinton's paid to make that
public. But they haven't.

If the Birthers actually have proof that Obama was not born in the
U.S. one has to wonder why they haven't presented it to a court of
law. But they haven't.

Cheers,

John B.


Johnny...they have indeed presented it to many courts of law. And nearly
ALL of the courts have refused to hear it. Would you want to be the
judge that was responsible for the removal of a US president?


Why not. After all that is what they threatened Agnew with -
prosecution for taking bribes - and he believed that they would. The
people who were set to get rid of Clinton, Nixon and Johnson certainly
weren't afraid.

Several courts have not refused to hear it..and have ruled that the
state of Hawaii is required to present Obamas birth cert.

So far..Hawaii has....refused.

For someone who posts..you sure dont seem to know much about the
subject.

Odd that, eh wot?

Gunner

sorry, wrong again.

If you are referring to the US District Court in Honolulu you are not
correct.

What actually happened was that the judge, Richard L. Puglisi, issued
an order that required the Hawaii Department of Health appear in
federal court Sept. 14 to show cause why Taitz should be prevented
from seeing whatever original 1961 documents the agency has on record
regarding Barack Obama's birth.

This is somewhat different from what you said. No demand to present
any certificates was made.

It is an order to show cause only. If the Department of Health cannot
show cause then the next step is the issuance of an order to disclose
the document.

You have, as they say, got the cart before the horse.

Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 20:05:54 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:50:24 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 05:44:43 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:14:27 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 00:09:34 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:21:34 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 02:32:10 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 08:08:14 +0700, john B.
wrote:

And that is the point. Until removed from office OBama is still
president and (if you were in the service you know this) the S/Sgt
swore to follow the orders of the president and officers placed over
him (the Sgt.).

Cheers,

John B.

So you would continue to work for the murderer, despite having seen him
commit his crime(s) until the moment he is convicted in court.

Interesting your standards...or lack of them.

Gunner

That is a nice try at an end-run but a lot of faulty logic there.

Firstly, did the Sgt. "SEE" Obama commit a crime? Nope. Have you seen
Obama commit a crime? Nope. Has anyone seen Obama commit a crime?
Nope.

As for Obama's birth certificate, or lack thereof is, I might mention
that you, gunner, have been challenged a number of times to provide a
copy of your DD 2 14 as proof that you really were in the military,
which you have so far refused to do.... it seems illogical, at best,
to challenge Obama to do something that you refuse to do.

Cheers,

John B.


http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...ama+birth+cert


As for challenging the Obamassiah...Im not the President of the US...a
person REQUIRED to be a Natural Born Citizen before becoming president.

Feel free to browse around the above link.

VBG

Gunner


So... We are to believe that Obama won't show his birth certificate
because he is a liar and a cheat... and gunner won't show his DD 2 14
because......

Because Im not President.

Was there any other questions?


I see. So if you are not president you don't need to tell the
truth..... Interesting moral code.
Cheers,

John B.

Correct. As Democrats prove each and every day. If its good enough for
the average Demonrat Congress Critter...its good enough for the
lumpinprolitariat. Right?

Now about that single upmost criteria that the President must have on
his side...being a Natural Born Citizen. NO other governmental
individual has that hanging over his head.

And you simply blow it off with a wift of your hand and a shrug of your
shoulders.

You vote Democrat..dontcha?

Gunner

Bad guess. I don't vote democrat.

But more to the point, since you confirm that you believe it is
perfectly acceptable for anyone but the president to tell lies, the
question arises, "can we believe gunner?" the answer seems to be, from
his own statement, no.

Thus, as gunner has confirmed that there is no reason for him to tell
the truth is there any reason to believe his stories about the
president's birth certificate?

Nope.

Cheers,

John B.


Odd then that you wholly believe the verbal utterances of a Democrat,
but consider the postings from me..to be lies.

And yet you have no evidence one way or another to doubt what Ive
posted..but the evidence against Obama is large and overpowering.

VBG

Doesnt speak well for your powers of observation, determination or lack
of bias .....does it?

VBG


Gunner

See? there you go again.

You said that as you weren't the president that as a member of the
lumpenproletariat there was no reason to tell the truth.

I said as you had made that statement then was there any reason to
believe anything you have said.

Now you get all upset and go yammering on about believing the
utterance of a democrat....

Not the "utterance of a democrat". the utterance of a gunner.

Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 23:11:11 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 8/29/2011 5:05 AM, john B. wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 23:08:20 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 8/28/2011 5:36 AM, john B. wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 19:26:28 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 8/27/2011 6:12 AM, ATP wrote:
"Ed wrote in message
...

"Obama's Fake wrote in message
...
An Air Force staff sergeant based in Germany says he's been AWOL
since last week because he read on the Internet that President
Barack Obama's long form birth certificate is a fraud.

Inspired by fellow birther, Army doctor Terrence Lakin, Staff
Sgt. Daryn J. Moran has plastered the Internet with the news
that he's deserting his post as an ophthalmology technician
overseas.

'Sounds like the dude has some prison time coming.

--
Ed Huntress
Not enough, unfortunately. Desertions and bogus claims of military service
don't seem to be punished severely in these modern times. I hope our
national defense is not impaired by the loss of this opthalmology
technician....


Military justice has been and remains an oxymoron. Case in point;
William Calley convicted of leading the massacre of hundreds of
civilians in My Lai, Vietnam. Sentenced to 40 months imprisonment; of
which most of it was spent in his quarters on a military base in Georgia.

So if all they do to you for massacring hundreds of people is what
Calley got then you can expect that same kind of lack of justice
throughout the entire system.

Hawke

Actually Calley was convicted of killing 22 people. Not hundreds.

Cheers,

John B.



We don't give a hoot what the man was "convicted" of. We know what he
did. He lead a massacre of hundreds of civilian old men, women, and
children. His punishment was so far below the level of the crime it's a
joke. Which just proves my point; the words justice and military never
ought to be used in the same sentence.

Hawke

Yes! And Gunner appears to advocate the culling of the political left
- ****! Lets get him too. And that damned guy from N.J. who keeps
researching things and poking holes in the best political theories.
What the hell, we know they are bad people lets just toss them in the
Hoosegow; don't need no damned trial, just get 'um.

What the hell; lets not even bother with a trial and all that
foolishness, just send the boys around and knock on the door. Shoot
'um right there on the doorstep.

Interesting that a bloke who claims so much education can't seem to
understand the benefits of a legal system.

And, by the way, Calley was charged with 22 counts of murder,
convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Cheers,

John B.


When you know the facts about what happened the only question is what is
the punishment going to be. I happened to see on TV a couple days ago
the actual helicopter door gunner that landed and stopped troops from
killing more innocent people.

This massacre didn't come to light until about a year after it happened.
It was covered up by several officers. The facts of the case are crystal
clear. Troops under the command of Calley killed hundreds of unarmed
civilians. So you can forget about the legal system. It was a war
atrocity and everybody knows it. Like I said, the only thing in doubt
was who would get punished and how much.

Calley did 40 months after only getting convicted of 22 murders. Is that
normal for someone killing over twenty people? We have lots of people on
death row for only killing one. Casey Anthony was going to get the death
sentence for just killing her daughter. If that is justice then what
does someone deserve for heading up a massacre of hundreds. Death
penalty, anyone?

The bottom line is as I stated from the start. Justice and the military
are like oil and water. They don't go together and this is just one more
example of it.

Hawke

Yes, a helicopter pilot did land and attempt to stop some of the
killing. Unsuccessfully I think.

But Calley was only a platoon commander and the whole company was
involved in the killing. That is a Captain, Company Commander, and
three Lt. Platoon commanders and one Lt. Col.. Task Force commander.

The investigations showed that all three platoons killed women and
kids, and even put numbers to the actions, and given that there was no
lack of communication it is difficult to believe that both the company
commander as well as the Task Force commander were unaware of at least
some of what was going on and made no attempt to stop it.

In fact the company commander actually said, after leaving the service
and some years had passed that he WAS aware of what was going on.

So you are right in that the Army did close ranks to protect
themselves but the justice you are hollering about was faulty in that
not everyone who was in a position to stop the killing were tried.

Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 20:02:43 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:37:58 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 05:41:40 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:05:04 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 23:08:20 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 8/28/2011 5:36 AM, john B. wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 19:26:28 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 8/27/2011 6:12 AM, ATP wrote:
"Ed wrote in message
...

"Obama's Fake wrote in message
...
An Air Force staff sergeant based in Germany says he's been AWOL
since last week because he read on the Internet that President
Barack Obama's long form birth certificate is a fraud.

Inspired by fellow birther, Army doctor Terrence Lakin, Staff
Sgt. Daryn J. Moran has plastered the Internet with the news
that he's deserting his post as an ophthalmology technician
overseas.

'Sounds like the dude has some prison time coming.

--
Ed Huntress
Not enough, unfortunately. Desertions and bogus claims of military service
don't seem to be punished severely in these modern times. I hope our
national defense is not impaired by the loss of this opthalmology
technician....


Military justice has been and remains an oxymoron. Case in point;
William Calley convicted of leading the massacre of hundreds of
civilians in My Lai, Vietnam. Sentenced to 40 months imprisonment; of
which most of it was spent in his quarters on a military base in Georgia.

So if all they do to you for massacring hundreds of people is what
Calley got then you can expect that same kind of lack of justice
throughout the entire system.

Hawke

Actually Calley was convicted of killing 22 people. Not hundreds.

Cheers,

John B.



We don't give a hoot what the man was "convicted" of. We know what he
did. He lead a massacre of hundreds of civilian old men, women, and
children. His punishment was so far below the level of the crime it's a
joke. Which just proves my point; the words justice and military never
ought to be used in the same sentence.

Hawke

Yes! And Gunner appears to advocate the culling of the political left
- ****! Lets get him too. And that damned guy from N.J. who keeps
researching things and poking holes in the best political theories.
What the hell, we know they are bad people lets just toss them in the
Hoosegow; don't need no damned trial, just get 'um.

What the hell; lets not even bother with a trial and all that
foolishness, just send the boys around and knock on the door. Shoot
'um right there on the doorstep.

Getting me..may take a great deal more than you would imagine.

As for Lets shoot em right at the door...who is the We you are referring
to?

If its the Leftwing...they are already the walking dead. If its the
rightwing....they will do far more than a merciful bullet.

Interesting that a bloke who claims so much education can't seem to
understand the benefits of a legal system.

And, by the way, Calley was charged with 22 counts of murder,
convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Cheers,

John B.

And he was let out of prison in about 3 yrs. Odd that, eh?

Is he still around?

Gunner

He petitioned the federal district court for habeas corpus on February
11, 1974, which was granted on September 25, 1974, along with his
immediate release, by federal judge J. Robert Elliott. Judge Elliott
found that Calley's trial had been prejudiced by pretrial publicity,
denial of subpoenas of certain defense witnesses, refusal of the
United States House of Representatives to release testimony taken in
executive session of its My Lai investigation, and inadequate notice
of the charges.

Subsequently, , President Nixon issued Calley a limited Presidential
Pardon. His general court-martial conviction and dismissal from the
U.S. Army were upheld, however, the prison sentence and subsequent
parole obligations were commuted to time served.


Cheers,

John B.


Yes indeed. Time served. 3 yrs of a life sentence.

Seems like Calley took the best deal he could get..and the courts were
more than happy to give him one.

And you dont consider that to be in the slightest bit odd.....?

VBG

Gunner

Not odd at all. Calley was a ****-up. some of his people referred to
him as a "kid playing at soldiers".
The company commander had briefed the troops to "that the women and
children would be out of the hamlet and all they could expect to
encounter would be the enemy. The soldiers were to explode brick
homes, set fire to thatch homes, shoot livestock, poison wells, and
destroy the enemy.

The assault was to be made by the 1st and 2nd platoon with the 3rd
held in reserve. Thus the 1st & 2nd platoons were first into the
village. Subsequent reports were that the 1st platoon kill between 90
and 120 Vietnamese, the 2nd platoon killed 60 - 70 Vietnamese and the
3rd platoon who followed the first two platoons into the village were
said to have killed 7 - 12 women and kids.

During the entire assault there was no communication failure between
the platoons and the company commander who was in communication with
the Task Force Commander who was in a "command helicopter" during the
assault.

Some of the first mention of killing civilians came form the gun ship
pilots so apparently the terrain was open enough that aircraft could
observe what was going on.

So here we have an affair involving the possibility that civilians
were deliberately killed and the command structure seems to be two Lts
plus one who was a "****-up". The company commander was on the
fast-track for major and the task force commander, a Lt. Col., in
direct and visual command of the operation.

Anyone who spent much time in the service knows what happened, the
wolves were catching up with the sleigh so the chucked the least
valuable passenger overboard, and it is likely that the president knew
too, thus his rather unique pardon.

Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:56:04 +0700, john B.
wrote:


Johnny...they have indeed presented it to many courts of law. And nearly
ALL of the courts have refused to hear it. Would you want to be the
judge that was responsible for the removal of a US president?


Why not. After all that is what they threatened Agnew with -
prosecution for taking bribes - and he believed that they would. The
people who were set to get rid of Clinton, Nixon and Johnson certainly
weren't afraid.

Agnew wasnt a Democrat...was he? Hummm?

And Clinton had a solidly Republican Congress..and they certainly didnt
impeach him now did they? Hummmm?

Several courts have not refused to hear it..and have ruled that the
state of Hawaii is required to present Obamas birth cert.

So far..Hawaii has....refused.

For someone who posts..you sure dont seem to know much about the
subject.

Odd that, eh wot?

Gunner

sorry, wrong again.

If you are referring to the US District Court in Honolulu you are not
correct.

What actually happened was that the judge, Richard L. Puglisi, issued
an order that required the Hawaii Department of Health appear in
federal court Sept. 14 to show cause why Taitz should be prevented
from seeing whatever original 1961 documents the agency has on record
regarding Barack Obama's birth.

This is somewhat different from what you said. No demand to present
any certificates was made.

It is an order to show cause only. If the Department of Health cannot
show cause then the next step is the issuance of an order to disclose
the document.

You have, as they say, got the cart before the horse.

Cheers,

John B.

Incorrect. As they say...the horse is on the proper end..despite your
hopes and dreams of change.....VBG

The July 5 subpoena granted Taitz by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Hawaii was supposed to allow her to examine the original
1961 Obama birth certificate:

The Department of records REFUSED to allow her to see it as a "privacy
matter"

This despite the alleged PUBLIC release of the birth cert in question.

So now its been taken back to the District Court for enforcement.

The sad part of it is...that a visual examination probably wont be able
to determine if the newly manufactured fraudulant document is real or
not. Im sure the Obama has paid someone in the No Such Agencies to
generate a decent forgery this time. Its been long enough since July
to have done this neatly.


Read mo Court tells Hawaii officials to explain Obama's birth records
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=331517#ixzz1WXXjDLg4

--
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry
capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an
Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense
and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have
such a man for their? president.. Blaming the prince of the
fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of
fools that made him their prince".

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:09:46 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 20:05:54 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:50:24 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 05:44:43 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:14:27 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 00:09:34 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:21:34 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 02:32:10 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 08:08:14 +0700, john B.
wrote:

And that is the point. Until removed from office OBama is still
president and (if you were in the service you know this) the S/Sgt
swore to follow the orders of the president and officers placed over
him (the Sgt.).

Cheers,

John B.

So you would continue to work for the murderer, despite having seen him
commit his crime(s) until the moment he is convicted in court.

Interesting your standards...or lack of them.

Gunner

That is a nice try at an end-run but a lot of faulty logic there.

Firstly, did the Sgt. "SEE" Obama commit a crime? Nope. Have you seen
Obama commit a crime? Nope. Has anyone seen Obama commit a crime?
Nope.

As for Obama's birth certificate, or lack thereof is, I might mention
that you, gunner, have been challenged a number of times to provide a
copy of your DD 2 14 as proof that you really were in the military,
which you have so far refused to do.... it seems illogical, at best,
to challenge Obama to do something that you refuse to do.

Cheers,

John B.


http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...ama+birth+cert


As for challenging the Obamassiah...Im not the President of the US...a
person REQUIRED to be a Natural Born Citizen before becoming president.

Feel free to browse around the above link.

VBG

Gunner


So... We are to believe that Obama won't show his birth certificate
because he is a liar and a cheat... and gunner won't show his DD 2 14
because......

Because Im not President.

Was there any other questions?


I see. So if you are not president you don't need to tell the
truth..... Interesting moral code.
Cheers,

John B.

Correct. As Democrats prove each and every day. If its good enough for
the average Demonrat Congress Critter...its good enough for the
lumpinprolitariat. Right?

Now about that single upmost criteria that the President must have on
his side...being a Natural Born Citizen. NO other governmental
individual has that hanging over his head.

And you simply blow it off with a wift of your hand and a shrug of your
shoulders.

You vote Democrat..dontcha?

Gunner

Bad guess. I don't vote democrat.

But more to the point, since you confirm that you believe it is
perfectly acceptable for anyone but the president to tell lies, the
question arises, "can we believe gunner?" the answer seems to be, from
his own statement, no.

Thus, as gunner has confirmed that there is no reason for him to tell
the truth is there any reason to believe his stories about the
president's birth certificate?

Nope.

Cheers,

John B.


Odd then that you wholly believe the verbal utterances of a Democrat,
but consider the postings from me..to be lies.

And yet you have no evidence one way or another to doubt what Ive
posted..but the evidence against Obama is large and overpowering.

VBG

Doesnt speak well for your powers of observation, determination or lack
of bias .....does it?

VBG


Gunner

See? there you go again.

You said that as you weren't the president that as a member of the
lumpenproletariat there was no reason to tell the truth.

I said as you had made that statement then was there any reason to
believe anything you have said.

Now you get all upset and go yammering on about believing the
utterance of a democrat....

Not the "utterance of a democrat". the utterance of a gunner.

Cheers,

John B.

Leftwing Democrats lie as a matter of course and lifestyle. They
typically are mentally ill and have strong beleevs that their way is the
right way, despite how they reach it. Much like Stalin killing off some
50 million of his citizens between 1921 and 1937.

Now as Ive stated..its a requirement that Obama be a US natural born
citizen. And to prove that...he was supposed to show his birth cert.
Which he has not done. He did show a fraudulant copy...which in itself
is rather...."suspect".

Id be more than happy to show you a copy of my birth certificate if you
really need to see one. Hell..come on over and Ill show you the
original.

Now was there anything else you wished to look stupid about?

Hummmm?

VBG

Gunner

--
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry
capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an
Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense
and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have
such a man for their? president.. Blaming the prince of the
fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of
fools that made him their prince".

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:24:15 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 20:02:43 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:37:58 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 05:41:40 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:05:04 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 23:08:20 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 8/28/2011 5:36 AM, john B. wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 19:26:28 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 8/27/2011 6:12 AM, ATP wrote:
"Ed wrote in message
...

"Obama's Fake wrote in message
...
An Air Force staff sergeant based in Germany says he's been AWOL
since last week because he read on the Internet that President
Barack Obama's long form birth certificate is a fraud.

Inspired by fellow birther, Army doctor Terrence Lakin, Staff
Sgt. Daryn J. Moran has plastered the Internet with the news
that he's deserting his post as an ophthalmology technician
overseas.

'Sounds like the dude has some prison time coming.

--
Ed Huntress
Not enough, unfortunately. Desertions and bogus claims of military service
don't seem to be punished severely in these modern times. I hope our
national defense is not impaired by the loss of this opthalmology
technician....


Military justice has been and remains an oxymoron. Case in point;
William Calley convicted of leading the massacre of hundreds of
civilians in My Lai, Vietnam. Sentenced to 40 months imprisonment; of
which most of it was spent in his quarters on a military base in Georgia.

So if all they do to you for massacring hundreds of people is what
Calley got then you can expect that same kind of lack of justice
throughout the entire system.

Hawke

Actually Calley was convicted of killing 22 people. Not hundreds.

Cheers,

John B.



We don't give a hoot what the man was "convicted" of. We know what he
did. He lead a massacre of hundreds of civilian old men, women, and
children. His punishment was so far below the level of the crime it's a
joke. Which just proves my point; the words justice and military never
ought to be used in the same sentence.

Hawke

Yes! And Gunner appears to advocate the culling of the political left
- ****! Lets get him too. And that damned guy from N.J. who keeps
researching things and poking holes in the best political theories.
What the hell, we know they are bad people lets just toss them in the
Hoosegow; don't need no damned trial, just get 'um.

What the hell; lets not even bother with a trial and all that
foolishness, just send the boys around and knock on the door. Shoot
'um right there on the doorstep.

Getting me..may take a great deal more than you would imagine.

As for Lets shoot em right at the door...who is the We you are referring
to?

If its the Leftwing...they are already the walking dead. If its the
rightwing....they will do far more than a merciful bullet.

Interesting that a bloke who claims so much education can't seem to
understand the benefits of a legal system.

And, by the way, Calley was charged with 22 counts of murder,
convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Cheers,

John B.

And he was let out of prison in about 3 yrs. Odd that, eh?

Is he still around?

Gunner

He petitioned the federal district court for habeas corpus on February
11, 1974, which was granted on September 25, 1974, along with his
immediate release, by federal judge J. Robert Elliott. Judge Elliott
found that Calley's trial had been prejudiced by pretrial publicity,
denial of subpoenas of certain defense witnesses, refusal of the
United States House of Representatives to release testimony taken in
executive session of its My Lai investigation, and inadequate notice
of the charges.

Subsequently, , President Nixon issued Calley a limited Presidential
Pardon. His general court-martial conviction and dismissal from the
U.S. Army were upheld, however, the prison sentence and subsequent
parole obligations were commuted to time served.


Cheers,

John B.


Yes indeed. Time served. 3 yrs of a life sentence.

Seems like Calley took the best deal he could get..and the courts were
more than happy to give him one.

And you dont consider that to be in the slightest bit odd.....?

VBG

Gunner

Not odd at all. Calley was a ****-up. some of his people referred to
him as a "kid playing at soldiers".
The company commander had briefed the troops to "that the women and
children would be out of the hamlet and all they could expect to
encounter would be the enemy. The soldiers were to explode brick
homes, set fire to thatch homes, shoot livestock, poison wells, and
destroy the enemy.

The assault was to be made by the 1st and 2nd platoon with the 3rd
held in reserve. Thus the 1st & 2nd platoons were first into the
village. Subsequent reports were that the 1st platoon kill between 90
and 120 Vietnamese, the 2nd platoon killed 60 - 70 Vietnamese and the
3rd platoon who followed the first two platoons into the village were
said to have killed 7 - 12 women and kids.

During the entire assault there was no communication failure between
the platoons and the company commander who was in communication with
the Task Force Commander who was in a "command helicopter" during the
assault.

Some of the first mention of killing civilians came form the gun ship
pilots so apparently the terrain was open enough that aircraft could
observe what was going on.

So here we have an affair involving the possibility that civilians
were deliberately killed and the command structure seems to be two Lts
plus one who was a "****-up". The company commander was on the
fast-track for major and the task force commander, a Lt. Col., in
direct and visual command of the operation.

Anyone who spent much time in the service knows what happened, the
wolves were catching up with the sleigh so the chucked the least
valuable passenger overboard, and it is likely that the president knew
too, thus his rather unique pardon.

Cheers,

John B.

Odd that Mai Lai occured during President Johnsons (D) administration
and was prosecuted under Nixon (R) some 3 yrs later.

"Of the 26 officers and soldiers initially charged for their part in the
My Lai Massacre or the subsequent cover-up, only Calley was convicted."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley

Seems Democrats try to hide such things...Republicans hold them to the
fire.

Gunner

--
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry
capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an
Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense
and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have
such a man for their? president.. Blaming the prince of the
fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of
fools that made him their prince".

On Aug 30, 3:24*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

....

Odd that Mai Lai occured during President Johnsons (D) administration
and was prosecuted under Nixon *(R) some 3 yrs later.

....

Seems Democrats try to hide such things...Republicans hold them to the
fire.

And had it been the other way around, you'd have bitched about how
Democrats persecute the troops while Republicans support them. Your
arguments are getting so pitifully weak...

rangerssuck wrote:

On Aug 30, 3:24 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

...

Odd that Mai Lai occured during President Johnsons (D) administration
and was prosecuted under Nixon (R) some 3 yrs later.

...

Seems Democrats try to hide such things...Republicans hold them to the
fire.

And had it been the other way around, you'd have bitched about how
Democrats persecute the troops while Republicans support them. Your
arguments are getting so pitifully weak...


How can they prosecute a crime, three years before it happens?


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:09:38 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:09:46 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 20:05:54 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:50:24 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 05:44:43 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:14:27 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 00:09:34 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:21:34 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 02:32:10 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 08:08:14 +0700, john B.
wrote:

And that is the point. Until removed from office OBama is still
president and (if you were in the service you know this) the S/Sgt
swore to follow the orders of the president and officers placed over
him (the Sgt.).

Cheers,

John B.

So you would continue to work for the murderer, despite having seen him
commit his crime(s) until the moment he is convicted in court.

Interesting your standards...or lack of them.

Gunner

That is a nice try at an end-run but a lot of faulty logic there.

Firstly, did the Sgt. "SEE" Obama commit a crime? Nope. Have you seen
Obama commit a crime? Nope. Has anyone seen Obama commit a crime?
Nope.

As for Obama's birth certificate, or lack thereof is, I might mention
that you, gunner, have been challenged a number of times to provide a
copy of your DD 2 14 as proof that you really were in the military,
which you have so far refused to do.... it seems illogical, at best,
to challenge Obama to do something that you refuse to do.

Cheers,

John B.


http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...ama+birth+cert


As for challenging the Obamassiah...Im not the President of the US...a
person REQUIRED to be a Natural Born Citizen before becoming president.

Feel free to browse around the above link.

VBG

Gunner


So... We are to believe that Obama won't show his birth certificate
because he is a liar and a cheat... and gunner won't show his DD 2 14
because......

Because Im not President.

Was there any other questions?


I see. So if you are not president you don't need to tell the
truth..... Interesting moral code.
Cheers,

John B.

Correct. As Democrats prove each and every day. If its good enough for
the average Demonrat Congress Critter...its good enough for the
lumpinprolitariat. Right?

Now about that single upmost criteria that the President must have on
his side...being a Natural Born Citizen. NO other governmental
individual has that hanging over his head.

And you simply blow it off with a wift of your hand and a shrug of your
shoulders.

You vote Democrat..dontcha?

Gunner

Bad guess. I don't vote democrat.

But more to the point, since you confirm that you believe it is
perfectly acceptable for anyone but the president to tell lies, the
question arises, "can we believe gunner?" the answer seems to be, from
his own statement, no.

Thus, as gunner has confirmed that there is no reason for him to tell
the truth is there any reason to believe his stories about the
president's birth certificate?

Nope.

Cheers,

John B.


Odd then that you wholly believe the verbal utterances of a Democrat,
but consider the postings from me..to be lies.

And yet you have no evidence one way or another to doubt what Ive
posted..but the evidence against Obama is large and overpowering.

VBG

Doesnt speak well for your powers of observation, determination or lack
of bias .....does it?

VBG


Gunner

See? there you go again.

You said that as you weren't the president that as a member of the
lumpenproletariat there was no reason to tell the truth.

I said as you had made that statement then was there any reason to
believe anything you have said.

Now you get all upset and go yammering on about believing the
utterance of a democrat....

Not the "utterance of a democrat". the utterance of a gunner.

Cheers,

John B.

Leftwing Democrats lie as a matter of course and lifestyle. They
typically are mentally ill and have strong beleevs that their way is the
right way, despite how they reach it. Much like Stalin killing off some
50 million of his citizens between 1921 and 1937.

Now as Ive stated..its a requirement that Obama be a US natural born
citizen. And to prove that...he was supposed to show his birth cert.
Which he has not done. He did show a fraudulant copy...which in itself
is rather...."suspect".

Id be more than happy to show you a copy of my birth certificate if you
really need to see one. Hell..come on over and Ill show you the
original.

Now was there anything else you wished to look stupid about?

Hummmm?

VBG

Gunner


You certainly are adroit at changing the subject, aren't you.

The discussion was whether one can believe Gunner after he has said
that the President is required to tell the truth but that the rest of
the world isn't.... I notice that you have edited the thread to
remover your remarks and then made the suggestion to brows the thread.
Nice one. Very much as the Russians you attempt to edit history to fit
your needs.

But to return to the original discussion, is there a need to believe
Gunner after he has confirmed that as he is not president there is no
need for him to tell the truth?
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:24:18 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:24:15 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 20:02:43 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:37:58 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 05:41:40 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:05:04 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 23:08:20 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 8/28/2011 5:36 AM, john B. wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 19:26:28 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 8/27/2011 6:12 AM, ATP wrote:
"Ed wrote in message
...

"Obama's Fake wrote in message
...
An Air Force staff sergeant based in Germany says he's been AWOL
since last week because he read on the Internet that President
Barack Obama's long form birth certificate is a fraud.

Inspired by fellow birther, Army doctor Terrence Lakin, Staff
Sgt. Daryn J. Moran has plastered the Internet with the news
that he's deserting his post as an ophthalmology technician
overseas.

'Sounds like the dude has some prison time coming.

--
Ed Huntress
Not enough, unfortunately. Desertions and bogus claims of military service
don't seem to be punished severely in these modern times. I hope our
national defense is not impaired by the loss of this opthalmology
technician....


Military justice has been and remains an oxymoron. Case in point;
William Calley convicted of leading the massacre of hundreds of
civilians in My Lai, Vietnam. Sentenced to 40 months imprisonment; of
which most of it was spent in his quarters on a military base in Georgia.

So if all they do to you for massacring hundreds of people is what
Calley got then you can expect that same kind of lack of justice
throughout the entire system.

Hawke

Actually Calley was convicted of killing 22 people. Not hundreds.

Cheers,

John B.



We don't give a hoot what the man was "convicted" of. We know what he
did. He lead a massacre of hundreds of civilian old men, women, and
children. His punishment was so far below the level of the crime it's a
joke. Which just proves my point; the words justice and military never
ought to be used in the same sentence.

Hawke

Yes! And Gunner appears to advocate the culling of the political left
- ****! Lets get him too. And that damned guy from N.J. who keeps
researching things and poking holes in the best political theories.
What the hell, we know they are bad people lets just toss them in the
Hoosegow; don't need no damned trial, just get 'um.

What the hell; lets not even bother with a trial and all that
foolishness, just send the boys around and knock on the door. Shoot
'um right there on the doorstep.

Getting me..may take a great deal more than you would imagine.

As for Lets shoot em right at the door...who is the We you are referring
to?

If its the Leftwing...they are already the walking dead. If its the
rightwing....they will do far more than a merciful bullet.

Interesting that a bloke who claims so much education can't seem to
understand the benefits of a legal system.

And, by the way, Calley was charged with 22 counts of murder,
convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Cheers,

John B.

And he was let out of prison in about 3 yrs. Odd that, eh?

Is he still around?

Gunner

He petitioned the federal district court for habeas corpus on February
11, 1974, which was granted on September 25, 1974, along with his
immediate release, by federal judge J. Robert Elliott. Judge Elliott
found that Calley's trial had been prejudiced by pretrial publicity,
denial of subpoenas of certain defense witnesses, refusal of the
United States House of Representatives to release testimony taken in
executive session of its My Lai investigation, and inadequate notice
of the charges.

Subsequently, , President Nixon issued Calley a limited Presidential
Pardon. His general court-martial conviction and dismissal from the
U.S. Army were upheld, however, the prison sentence and subsequent
parole obligations were commuted to time served.


Cheers,

John B.


Yes indeed. Time served. 3 yrs of a life sentence.

Seems like Calley took the best deal he could get..and the courts were
more than happy to give him one.

And you dont consider that to be in the slightest bit odd.....?

VBG

Gunner

Not odd at all. Calley was a ****-up. some of his people referred to
him as a "kid playing at soldiers".
The company commander had briefed the troops to "that the women and
children would be out of the hamlet and all they could expect to
encounter would be the enemy. The soldiers were to explode brick
homes, set fire to thatch homes, shoot livestock, poison wells, and
destroy the enemy.

The assault was to be made by the 1st and 2nd platoon with the 3rd
held in reserve. Thus the 1st & 2nd platoons were first into the
village. Subsequent reports were that the 1st platoon kill between 90
and 120 Vietnamese, the 2nd platoon killed 60 - 70 Vietnamese and the
3rd platoon who followed the first two platoons into the village were
said to have killed 7 - 12 women and kids.

During the entire assault there was no communication failure between
the platoons and the company commander who was in communication with
the Task Force Commander who was in a "command helicopter" during the
assault.

Some of the first mention of killing civilians came form the gun ship
pilots so apparently the terrain was open enough that aircraft could
observe what was going on.

So here we have an affair involving the possibility that civilians
were deliberately killed and the command structure seems to be two Lts
plus one who was a "****-up". The company commander was on the
fast-track for major and the task force commander, a Lt. Col., in
direct and visual command of the operation.

Anyone who spent much time in the service knows what happened, the
wolves were catching up with the sleigh so the chucked the least
valuable passenger overboard, and it is likely that the president knew
too, thus his rather unique pardon.

Cheers,

John B.

Odd that Mai Lai occured during President Johnsons (D) administration
and was prosecuted under Nixon (R) some 3 yrs later.

"Of the 26 officers and soldiers initially charged for their part in the
My Lai Massacre or the subsequent cover-up, only Calley was convicted."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley

Seems Democrats try to hide such things...Republicans hold them to the
fire.

Gunner

And now you are telling us that the Army is democratic?

Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 03:56:24 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:56:04 +0700, john B.
wrote:


Johnny...they have indeed presented it to many courts of law. And nearly
ALL of the courts have refused to hear it. Would you want to be the
judge that was responsible for the removal of a US president?


Why not. After all that is what they threatened Agnew with -
prosecution for taking bribes - and he believed that they would. The
people who were set to get rid of Clinton, Nixon and Johnson certainly
weren't afraid.

Agnew wasnt a Democrat...was he? Hummm?

And Clinton had a solidly Republican Congress..and they certainly didnt
impeach him now did they? Hummmm?

Several courts have not refused to hear it..and have ruled that the
state of Hawaii is required to present Obamas birth cert.

So far..Hawaii has....refused.

For someone who posts..you sure dont seem to know much about the
subject.

Odd that, eh wot?

Gunner

sorry, wrong again.

If you are referring to the US District Court in Honolulu you are not
correct.

What actually happened was that the judge, Richard L. Puglisi, issued
an order that required the Hawaii Department of Health appear in
federal court Sept. 14 to show cause why Taitz should be prevented
from seeing whatever original 1961 documents the agency has on record
regarding Barack Obama's birth.

This is somewhat different from what you said. No demand to present
any certificates was made.

It is an order to show cause only. If the Department of Health cannot
show cause then the next step is the issuance of an order to disclose
the document.

You have, as they say, got the cart before the horse.

Cheers,

John B.

Incorrect. As they say...the horse is on the proper end..despite your
hopes and dreams of change.....VBG

The July 5 subpoena granted Taitz by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Hawaii was supposed to allow her to examine the original
1961 Obama birth certificate:

The Department of records REFUSED to allow her to see it as a "privacy
matter"

This despite the alleged PUBLIC release of the birth cert in question.

So now its been taken back to the District Court for enforcement.

The sad part of it is...that a visual examination probably wont be able
to determine if the newly manufactured fraudulant document is real or
not. Im sure the Obama has paid someone in the No Such Agencies to
generate a decent forgery this time. Its been long enough since July
to have done this neatly.


Read mo Court tells Hawaii officials to explain Obama's birth records
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=331517#ixzz1WXXjDLg4

Eh, you jumped the gun a bit, Gunner. The case was decided today:

"Final judgment is hereby entered for defendant [Astrue, the plaintiff being
Taitz], dismissing this case with prejudice."

Ouch! That's not a common thing to do. The judge is threatening Taitz with
imprisonment now:

08/30/2011 35 ORDER denying 12[RECAP] Motion to Compel; denying 18[RECAP]
Motion to Strike; denying 19[RECAP] Motion for Clarification; denying
20[RECAP] Motion for Default Judgment; and denying 22[RECAP] Motion to
Compel. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on August 30, 2011. (lcrcl2)
(Entered: 08/30/2011)

08/30/2011 34 ORDER granting 21[RECAP] defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on August 30, 2011.
(lcrcl2) (Entered: 08/30/2011)

08/30/2011 33 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on
August 30, 2011. (lcrcl2) (Entered: 08/30/2011)

[From the judge deciding the case] "As her numerous filings with the Court
demonstrate, plaintiff will stop at nothing to get to the bottom of this
alleged conspiracy. Unfortunately for plaintiff, today is not her lucky day.

"Her vehement allegations of fraud consist of mere 'bare suspicion[s]' and
thus fail to satisfy the public interest standard required under FOIA. Id.4

"Anyone who knowingly and willfully uses SSNVS to request or obtain
information from SSA under false pretenses violates Federal law and may be
punished by a fine, imprisonment or both. Id. at 5. As with the registration
acknowledgement form discussed above, the Court can only conclude that
plaintiff has submitted a page that some individual obtained under false
pretenses; that is, by representing himself as the President's employer. The
Court notes that both documents submitted by plaintiff are incomplete; the
address on the registration acknowledgment form and the employer
identification number on the SSNVS page have been blacked out, further
confirming the documents' fraudulent origins. For all of these reasons, the
Court will disregard both documents as well as any arguments made in
reliance on them."


Gunner, you're hereby appointed Chief Bull-Goose Birther Loony, one of the
few gullible saps left in North America who still believes Taitz's crap.

Hat's off to you. It must not be easy to be such a perpetual sucker. Most
such people are either dead from terminal stupidity or walking around in
circles, talking to themselves.

Naw Ed. You've just proved Gunner with the definitive proof that the
documents are false.

After all a federal judge wouldn't have dismissed the case unless
there was something fishy going on, would he?

Cheers,

John B.

On 8/30/2011 8:15 PM, john B. wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:09:38 -0700, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:09:46 +0700, john
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 20:05:54 -0700, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:50:24 +0700, john
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 05:44:43 -0700, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:14:27 +0700, john
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 00:09:34 -0700, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:21:34 +0700, john
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 02:32:10 -0700, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 08:08:14 +0700, john
wrote:

And that is the point. Until removed from office OBama is still
president and (if you were in the service you know this) the S/Sgt
swore to follow the orders of the president and officers placed over
him (the Sgt.).

Cheers,

John B.

So you would continue to work for the murderer, despite having seen him
commit his crime(s) until the moment he is convicted in court.

Interesting your standards...or lack of them.

Gunner

That is a nice try at an end-run but a lot of faulty logic there.

Firstly, did the Sgt. "SEE" Obama commit a crime? Nope. Have you seen
Obama commit a crime? Nope. Has anyone seen Obama commit a crime?
Nope.

As for Obama's birth certificate, or lack thereof is, I might mention
that you, gunner, have been challenged a number of times to provide a
copy of your DD 2 14 as proof that you really were in the military,
which you have so far refused to do.... it seems illogical, at best,
to challenge Obama to do something that you refuse to do.

Cheers,

John B.


http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...ama+birth+cert


As for challenging the Obamassiah...Im not the President of the US...a
person REQUIRED to be a Natural Born Citizen before becoming president.

Feel free to browse around the above link.

VBG

Gunner


So... We are to believe that Obama won't show his birth certificate
because he is a liar and a cheat... and gunner won't show his DD 2 14
because......

Because Im not President.

Was there any other questions?


I see. So if you are not president you don't need to tell the
truth..... Interesting moral code.
Cheers,

John B.

Correct. As Democrats prove each and every day. If its good enough for
the average Demonrat Congress Critter...its good enough for the
lumpinprolitariat. Right?

Now about that single upmost criteria that the President must have on
his side...being a Natural Born Citizen. NO other governmental
individual has that hanging over his head.

And you simply blow it off with a wift of your hand and a shrug of your
shoulders.

You vote Democrat..dontcha?

Gunner

Bad guess. I don't vote democrat.

But more to the point, since you confirm that you believe it is
perfectly acceptable for anyone but the president to tell lies, the
question arises, "can we believe gunner?" the answer seems to be, from
his own statement, no.

Thus, as gunner has confirmed that there is no reason for him to tell
the truth is there any reason to believe his stories about the
president's birth certificate?

Nope.

Cheers,

John B.


Odd then that you wholly believe the verbal utterances of a Democrat,
but consider the postings from me..to be lies.

And yet you have no evidence one way or another to doubt what Ive
posted..but the evidence against Obama is large and overpowering.

VBG

Doesnt speak well for your powers of observation, determination or lack
of bias .....does it?

VBG


Gunner

See? there you go again.

You said that as you weren't the president that as a member of the
lumpenproletariat there was no reason to tell the truth.

I said as you had made that statement then was there any reason to
believe anything you have said.

Now you get all upset and go yammering on about believing the
utterance of a democrat....

Not the "utterance of a democrat". the utterance of a gunner.

Cheers,

John B.

Leftwing Democrats lie as a matter of course and lifestyle. They
typically are mentally ill and have strong beleevs that their way is the
right way, despite how they reach it. Much like Stalin killing off some
50 million of his citizens between 1921 and 1937.

Now as Ive stated..its a requirement that Obama be a US natural born
citizen. And to prove that...he was supposed to show his birth cert.
Which he has not done. He did show a fraudulant copy...which in itself
is rather...."suspect".

Id be more than happy to show you a copy of my birth certificate if you
really need to see one. Hell..come on over and Ill show you the
original.

Now was there anything else you wished to look stupid about?

Hummmm?

VBG

Gunner


You certainly are adroit at changing the subject, aren't you.

The discussion was whether one can believe Gunner after he has said
that the President is required to tell the truth but that the rest of
the world isn't.... I notice that you have edited the thread to
remover your remarks and then made the suggestion to brows the thread.
Nice one. Very much as the Russians you attempt to edit history to fit
your needs.

But to return to the original discussion, is there a need to believe
Gunner after he has confirmed that as he is not president there is no
need for him to tell the truth?
Cheers,

John B.

Believe Gummer? If that guy stepped onto my front porch, with water
running off his skull, while thunder boomed, and lightning flashed
behind him, I would still personally verify that it was indeed raining.
Too many times he has been proven wrong.

On 8/29/2011 11:00 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:44:51 +0700, john
wrote:



Given the Republican's apparent efforts to block whatever the
President does it is logical to think that if there was any real doubt
that he was unqualified to serve that they would not have been all
over it. But they haven't.

If, during the primaries, it could have been proved that he was
ineligible to serve how much would the Clinton's paid to make that
public. But they haven't.

If the Birthers actually have proof that Obama was not born in the
U.S. one has to wonder why they haven't presented it to a court of
law. But they haven't.

Cheers,

John B.


Johnny...they have indeed presented it to many courts of law. And nearly
ALL of the courts have refused to hear it.

If the Brady morons did something like that, you would take it as a sign
that the case had zero merit. And you would be utterly correct. If
courts refuse cases, there is a reason, it isn't deep, it is simple, the
case is not worth hearing.

Get it?




Would you want to be the
judge that was responsible for the removal of a US president?

Several courts have not refused to hear it..and have ruled that the
state of Hawaii is required to present Obamas birth cert.

So far..Hawaii has....refused.

For someone who posts..you sure dont seem to know much about the
subject.

Odd that, eh wot?

Gunner

--
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry
capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an
Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense
and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have
such a man for their? president.. Blaming the prince of the
fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of
fools that made him their prince".

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 07:15:35 +0700, john B.
wrote:


Now was there anything else you wished to look stupid about?

Hummmm?

VBG

Gunner


You certainly are adroit at changing the subject, aren't you.

The discussion was whether one can believe Gunner after he has said
that the President is required to tell the truth but that the rest of
the world isn't.... I notice that you have edited the thread to
remover your remarks and then made the suggestion to brows the thread.
Nice one. Very much as the Russians you attempt to edit history to fit
your needs.

But to return to the original discussion, is there a need to believe
Gunner after he has confirmed that as he is not president there is no
need for him to tell the truth?
Cheers,

John B.


Actually Jonnie...I take it you havent read the thread subject line have
you?

The subject is whether or not the Obamassiah is legally the President of
the USA or not. Its hardly about me.

Now Im not sure why you keep trying to divert the thread over and over
again to me..but as I said above...it does appear you are not done
making yourself look very stupid.

Now was there anything ELSE you wished to look stupid about? Or are you
trying to run up Stupidity Points for the grand prize?

Gunner


--
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry
capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an
Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense
and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have
such a man for their? president.. Blaming the prince of the
fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of
fools that made him their prince".

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 07:17:37 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:24:18 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:24:15 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 20:02:43 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:37:58 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 05:41:40 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:05:04 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 23:08:20 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 8/28/2011 5:36 AM, john B. wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 19:26:28 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 8/27/2011 6:12 AM, ATP wrote:
"Ed wrote in message
...

"Obama's Fake wrote in message
...
An Air Force staff sergeant based in Germany says he's been AWOL
since last week because he read on the Internet that President
Barack Obama's long form birth certificate is a fraud.

Inspired by fellow birther, Army doctor Terrence Lakin, Staff
Sgt. Daryn J. Moran has plastered the Internet with the news
that he's deserting his post as an ophthalmology technician
overseas.

'Sounds like the dude has some prison time coming.

--
Ed Huntress
Not enough, unfortunately. Desertions and bogus claims of military service
don't seem to be punished severely in these modern times. I hope our
national defense is not impaired by the loss of this opthalmology
technician....


Military justice has been and remains an oxymoron. Case in point;
William Calley convicted of leading the massacre of hundreds of
civilians in My Lai, Vietnam. Sentenced to 40 months imprisonment; of
which most of it was spent in his quarters on a military base in Georgia.

So if all they do to you for massacring hundreds of people is what
Calley got then you can expect that same kind of lack of justice
throughout the entire system.

Hawke

Actually Calley was convicted of killing 22 people. Not hundreds.

Cheers,

John B.



We don't give a hoot what the man was "convicted" of. We know what he
did. He lead a massacre of hundreds of civilian old men, women, and
children. His punishment was so far below the level of the crime it's a
joke. Which just proves my point; the words justice and military never
ought to be used in the same sentence.

Hawke

Yes! And Gunner appears to advocate the culling of the political left
- ****! Lets get him too. And that damned guy from N.J. who keeps
researching things and poking holes in the best political theories.
What the hell, we know they are bad people lets just toss them in the
Hoosegow; don't need no damned trial, just get 'um.

What the hell; lets not even bother with a trial and all that
foolishness, just send the boys around and knock on the door. Shoot
'um right there on the doorstep.

Getting me..may take a great deal more than you would imagine.

As for Lets shoot em right at the door...who is the We you are referring
to?

If its the Leftwing...they are already the walking dead. If its the
rightwing....they will do far more than a merciful bullet.

Interesting that a bloke who claims so much education can't seem to
understand the benefits of a legal system.

And, by the way, Calley was charged with 22 counts of murder,
convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Cheers,

John B.

And he was let out of prison in about 3 yrs. Odd that, eh?

Is he still around?

Gunner

He petitioned the federal district court for habeas corpus on February
11, 1974, which was granted on September 25, 1974, along with his
immediate release, by federal judge J. Robert Elliott. Judge Elliott
found that Calley's trial had been prejudiced by pretrial publicity,
denial of subpoenas of certain defense witnesses, refusal of the
United States House of Representatives to release testimony taken in
executive session of its My Lai investigation, and inadequate notice
of the charges.

Subsequently, , President Nixon issued Calley a limited Presidential
Pardon. His general court-martial conviction and dismissal from the
U.S. Army were upheld, however, the prison sentence and subsequent
parole obligations were commuted to time served.


Cheers,

John B.


Yes indeed. Time served. 3 yrs of a life sentence.

Seems like Calley took the best deal he could get..and the courts were
more than happy to give him one.

And you dont consider that to be in the slightest bit odd.....?

VBG

Gunner

Not odd at all. Calley was a ****-up. some of his people referred to
him as a "kid playing at soldiers".
The company commander had briefed the troops to "that the women and
children would be out of the hamlet and all they could expect to
encounter would be the enemy. The soldiers were to explode brick
homes, set fire to thatch homes, shoot livestock, poison wells, and
destroy the enemy.

The assault was to be made by the 1st and 2nd platoon with the 3rd
held in reserve. Thus the 1st & 2nd platoons were first into the
village. Subsequent reports were that the 1st platoon kill between 90
and 120 Vietnamese, the 2nd platoon killed 60 - 70 Vietnamese and the
3rd platoon who followed the first two platoons into the village were
said to have killed 7 - 12 women and kids.

During the entire assault there was no communication failure between
the platoons and the company commander who was in communication with
the Task Force Commander who was in a "command helicopter" during the
assault.

Some of the first mention of killing civilians came form the gun ship
pilots so apparently the terrain was open enough that aircraft could
observe what was going on.

So here we have an affair involving the possibility that civilians
were deliberately killed and the command structure seems to be two Lts
plus one who was a "****-up". The company commander was on the
fast-track for major and the task force commander, a Lt. Col., in
direct and visual command of the operation.

Anyone who spent much time in the service knows what happened, the
wolves were catching up with the sleigh so the chucked the least
valuable passenger overboard, and it is likely that the president knew
too, thus his rather unique pardon.

Cheers,

John B.

Odd that Mai Lai occured during President Johnsons (D) administration
and was prosecuted under Nixon (R) some 3 yrs later.

"Of the 26 officers and soldiers initially charged for their part in the
My Lai Massacre or the subsequent cover-up, only Calley was convicted."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley

Seems Democrats try to hide such things...Republicans hold them to the
fire.

Gunner

And now you are telling us that the Army is democratic?

Cheers,

John B.

What..the people in Charge of the Army dont make the rules?

You do know that each administration controls the Army (and other
services) and sets policy...right?

Oh..sorry..I keep forgetting you really ARE stupid.

Pity about that eh wot?

Gunner, shaking his head at the bozo.


--
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry
capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an
Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense
and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have
such a man for their? president.. Blaming the prince of the
fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of
fools that made him their prince".

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 07:25:34 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 03:56:24 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:56:04 +0700, john B.
wrote:


Johnny...they have indeed presented it to many courts of law. And nearly
ALL of the courts have refused to hear it. Would you want to be the
judge that was responsible for the removal of a US president?


Why not. After all that is what they threatened Agnew with -
prosecution for taking bribes - and he believed that they would. The
people who were set to get rid of Clinton, Nixon and Johnson certainly
weren't afraid.

Agnew wasnt a Democrat...was he? Hummm?

And Clinton had a solidly Republican Congress..and they certainly didnt
impeach him now did they? Hummmm?

Several courts have not refused to hear it..and have ruled that the
state of Hawaii is required to present Obamas birth cert.

So far..Hawaii has....refused.

For someone who posts..you sure dont seem to know much about the
subject.

Odd that, eh wot?

Gunner

sorry, wrong again.

If you are referring to the US District Court in Honolulu you are not
correct.

What actually happened was that the judge, Richard L. Puglisi, issued
an order that required the Hawaii Department of Health appear in
federal court Sept. 14 to show cause why Taitz should be prevented
from seeing whatever original 1961 documents the agency has on record
regarding Barack Obama's birth.

This is somewhat different from what you said. No demand to present
any certificates was made.

It is an order to show cause only. If the Department of Health cannot
show cause then the next step is the issuance of an order to disclose
the document.

You have, as they say, got the cart before the horse.

Cheers,

John B.

Incorrect. As they say...the horse is on the proper end..despite your
hopes and dreams of change.....VBG

The July 5 subpoena granted Taitz by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Hawaii was supposed to allow her to examine the original
1961 Obama birth certificate:

The Department of records REFUSED to allow her to see it as a "privacy
matter"

This despite the alleged PUBLIC release of the birth cert in question.

So now its been taken back to the District Court for enforcement.

The sad part of it is...that a visual examination probably wont be able
to determine if the newly manufactured fraudulant document is real or
not. Im sure the Obama has paid someone in the No Such Agencies to
generate a decent forgery this time. Its been long enough since July
to have done this neatly.


Read mo Court tells Hawaii officials to explain Obama's birth records
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=331517#ixzz1WXXjDLg4

Eh, you jumped the gun a bit, Gunner. The case was decided today:

"Final judgment is hereby entered for defendant [Astrue, the plaintiff being
Taitz], dismissing this case with prejudice."

Ouch! That's not a common thing to do. The judge is threatening Taitz with
imprisonment now:

08/30/2011 35 ORDER denying 12[RECAP] Motion to Compel; denying 18[RECAP]
Motion to Strike; denying 19[RECAP] Motion for Clarification; denying
20[RECAP] Motion for Default Judgment; and denying 22[RECAP] Motion to
Compel. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on August 30, 2011. (lcrcl2)
(Entered: 08/30/2011)

08/30/2011 34 ORDER granting 21[RECAP] defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on August 30, 2011.
(lcrcl2) (Entered: 08/30/2011)

08/30/2011 33 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on
August 30, 2011. (lcrcl2) (Entered: 08/30/2011)

[From the judge deciding the case] "As her numerous filings with the Court
demonstrate, plaintiff will stop at nothing to get to the bottom of this
alleged conspiracy. Unfortunately for plaintiff, today is not her lucky day.

"Her vehement allegations of fraud consist of mere 'bare suspicion[s]' and
thus fail to satisfy the public interest standard required under FOIA. Id.4

"Anyone who knowingly and willfully uses SSNVS to request or obtain
information from SSA under false pretenses violates Federal law and may be
punished by a fine, imprisonment or both. Id. at 5. As with the registration
acknowledgement form discussed above, the Court can only conclude that
plaintiff has submitted a page that some individual obtained under false
pretenses; that is, by representing himself as the President's employer. The
Court notes that both documents submitted by plaintiff are incomplete; the
address on the registration acknowledgment form and the employer
identification number on the SSNVS page have been blacked out, further
confirming the documents' fraudulent origins. For all of these reasons, the
Court will disregard both documents as well as any arguments made in
reliance on them."


Gunner, you're hereby appointed Chief Bull-Goose Birther Loony, one of the
few gullible saps left in North America who still believes Taitz's crap.

Hat's off to you. It must not be easy to be such a perpetual sucker. Most
such people are either dead from terminal stupidity or walking around in
circles, talking to themselves.

Naw Ed. You've just proved Gunner with the definitive proof that the
documents are false.

After all a federal judge wouldn't have dismissed the case unless
there was something fishy going on, would he?

Cheers,

John B.


Did you notice that the judge dismissed the case "with prejudice"?

Care to offer up to the readers what that means?

And of course...you seem to have forgotten something...

"The July 5 subpoena granted Taitz by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Hawaii was supposed to allow her to examine the original
1961 Obama birth certificate:"

And of course...you are forgetting something else....

"August 30, 2011
Judge Dismisses Suit from Birther Taitz

Several weeks after U.S. District Chief Judge Royce Lamberth issued a
rebuke to to birther activist, attorney and dentist Orly Taitz over her
handling of a Freedom of Information Act request for social security
information, Lamberth issued an order Tuesday morning dismissing the
case."

That has nothing to do with the Hawaiian Department of Records
action..which is still pending.


Now it is indeed curious as to why Obama has a Conneticut social
security number...and he nor any member of his family has ever lived in
Conneticut.

Im rather interested in that bit myself.....And Im also interested in
why Obama has a social security number that was first issued in 1987

VBG


--
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry
capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an
Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense
and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have
such a man for their? president.. Blaming the prince of the
fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of
fools that made him their prince".

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 07:25:34 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 03:56:24 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:56:04 +0700, john B.
wrote:


Johnny...they have indeed presented it to many courts of law. And
nearly
ALL of the courts have refused to hear it. Would you want to be the
judge that was responsible for the removal of a US president?


Why not. After all that is what they threatened Agnew with -
prosecution for taking bribes - and he believed that they would. The
people who were set to get rid of Clinton, Nixon and Johnson certainly
weren't afraid.

Agnew wasnt a Democrat...was he? Hummm?

And Clinton had a solidly Republican Congress..and they certainly
didnt
impeach him now did they? Hummmm?

Several courts have not refused to hear it..and have ruled that the
state of Hawaii is required to present Obamas birth cert.

So far..Hawaii has....refused.

For someone who posts..you sure dont seem to know much about the
subject.

Odd that, eh wot?

Gunner

sorry, wrong again.

If you are referring to the US District Court in Honolulu you are not
correct.

What actually happened was that the judge, Richard L. Puglisi, issued
an order that required the Hawaii Department of Health appear in
federal court Sept. 14 to show cause why Taitz should be prevented
from seeing whatever original 1961 documents the agency has on record
regarding Barack Obama's birth.

This is somewhat different from what you said. No demand to present
any certificates was made.

It is an order to show cause only. If the Department of Health cannot
show cause then the next step is the issuance of an order to disclose
the document.

You have, as they say, got the cart before the horse.

Cheers,

John B.

Incorrect. As they say...the horse is on the proper end..despite your
hopes and dreams of change.....VBG

The July 5 subpoena granted Taitz by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Hawaii was supposed to allow her to examine the original
1961 Obama birth certificate:

The Department of records REFUSED to allow her to see it as a "privacy
matter"

This despite the alleged PUBLIC release of the birth cert in question.

So now its been taken back to the District Court for enforcement.

The sad part of it is...that a visual examination probably wont be able
to determine if the newly manufactured fraudulant document is real or
not. Im sure the Obama has paid someone in the No Such Agencies to
generate a decent forgery this time. Its been long enough since July
to have done this neatly.


Read mo Court tells Hawaii officials to explain Obama's birth
records
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=331517#ixzz1WXXjDLg4

Eh, you jumped the gun a bit, Gunner. The case was decided today:

"Final judgment is hereby entered for defendant [Astrue, the plaintiff
being
Taitz], dismissing this case with prejudice."

Ouch! That's not a common thing to do. The judge is threatening Taitz
with
imprisonment now:

08/30/2011 35 ORDER denying 12[RECAP] Motion to Compel; denying 18[RECAP]
Motion to Strike; denying 19[RECAP] Motion for Clarification; denying
20[RECAP] Motion for Default Judgment; and denying 22[RECAP] Motion to
Compel. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on August 30, 2011.
(lcrcl2)
(Entered: 08/30/2011)

08/30/2011 34 ORDER granting 21[RECAP] defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on August 30, 2011.
(lcrcl2) (Entered: 08/30/2011)

08/30/2011 33 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth
on
August 30, 2011. (lcrcl2) (Entered: 08/30/2011)

[From the judge deciding the case] "As her numerous filings with the
Court
demonstrate, plaintiff will stop at nothing to get to the bottom of this
alleged conspiracy. Unfortunately for plaintiff, today is not her lucky
day.

"Her vehement allegations of fraud consist of mere 'bare suspicion[s]'
and
thus fail to satisfy the public interest standard required under FOIA.
Id.4

"Anyone who knowingly and willfully uses SSNVS to request or obtain
information from SSA under false pretenses violates Federal law and may
be
punished by a fine, imprisonment or both. Id. at 5. As with the
registration
acknowledgement form discussed above, the Court can only conclude that
plaintiff has submitted a page that some individual obtained under false
pretenses; that is, by representing himself as the President's employer.
The
Court notes that both documents submitted by plaintiff are incomplete;
the
address on the registration acknowledgment form and the employer
identification number on the SSNVS page have been blacked out, further
confirming the documents' fraudulent origins. For all of these reasons,
the
Court will disregard both documents as well as any arguments made in
reliance on them."


Gunner, you're hereby appointed Chief Bull-Goose Birther Loony, one of
the
few gullible saps left in North America who still believes Taitz's crap.

Hat's off to you. It must not be easy to be such a perpetual sucker. Most
such people are either dead from terminal stupidity or walking around in
circles, talking to themselves.

Naw Ed. You've just proved Gunner with the definitive proof that the
documents are false.

After all a federal judge wouldn't have dismissed the case unless
there was something fishy going on, would he?

Cheers,

John B.


Did you notice that the judge dismissed the case "with prejudice"?

Care to offer up to the readers what that means?

Yeah. It means Orly Taitz is done. She can't re-file the case.


And of course...you seem to have forgotten something...

"The July 5 subpoena granted Taitz by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Hawaii was supposed to allow her to examine the original
1961 Obama birth certificate:"

And of course...you are forgetting something else....

"August 30, 2011
Judge Dismisses Suit from Birther Taitz

Several weeks after U.S. District Chief Judge Royce Lamberth issued a
rebuke to to birther activist, attorney and dentist Orly Taitz over her
handling of a Freedom of Information Act request for social security
information, Lamberth issued an order Tuesday morning dismissing the
case."

That has nothing to do with the Hawaiian Department of Records
action..which is still pending.

If they don't prosecute her first for submitting fraudulent documents in the
Astrue case. g Red flags went up at her state bar association when the
judge pointed out the criminal violations. I hope Orly has a back-up career.



Now it is indeed curious as to why Obama has a Conneticut social
security number...and he nor any member of his family has ever lived in
Conneticut.

Im rather interested in that bit myself.....And Im also interested in
why Obama has a social security number that was first issued in 1987

VBG


--
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry
capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an
Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense
and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have
such a man for their? president.. Blaming the prince of the
fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of
fools that made him their prince".

"john B." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 03:56:24 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:56:04 +0700, john B.
wrote:


Johnny...they have indeed presented it to many courts of law. And
nearly
ALL of the courts have refused to hear it. Would you want to be the
judge that was responsible for the removal of a US president?


Why not. After all that is what they threatened Agnew with -
prosecution for taking bribes - and he believed that they would. The
people who were set to get rid of Clinton, Nixon and Johnson certainly
weren't afraid.

Agnew wasnt a Democrat...was he? Hummm?

And Clinton had a solidly Republican Congress..and they certainly didnt
impeach him now did they? Hummmm?

Several courts have not refused to hear it..and have ruled that the
state of Hawaii is required to present Obamas birth cert.

So far..Hawaii has....refused.

For someone who posts..you sure dont seem to know much about the
subject.

Odd that, eh wot?

Gunner

sorry, wrong again.

If you are referring to the US District Court in Honolulu you are not
correct.

What actually happened was that the judge, Richard L. Puglisi, issued
an order that required the Hawaii Department of Health appear in
federal court Sept. 14 to show cause why Taitz should be prevented
from seeing whatever original 1961 documents the agency has on record
regarding Barack Obama's birth.

This is somewhat different from what you said. No demand to present
any certificates was made.

It is an order to show cause only. If the Department of Health cannot
show cause then the next step is the issuance of an order to disclose
the document.

You have, as they say, got the cart before the horse.

Cheers,

John B.

Incorrect. As they say...the horse is on the proper end..despite your
hopes and dreams of change.....VBG

The July 5 subpoena granted Taitz by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Hawaii was supposed to allow her to examine the original
1961 Obama birth certificate:

The Department of records REFUSED to allow her to see it as a "privacy
matter"

This despite the alleged PUBLIC release of the birth cert in question.

So now its been taken back to the District Court for enforcement.

The sad part of it is...that a visual examination probably wont be able
to determine if the newly manufactured fraudulant document is real or
not. Im sure the Obama has paid someone in the No Such Agencies to
generate a decent forgery this time. Its been long enough since July
to have done this neatly.


Read mo Court tells Hawaii officials to explain Obama's birth records
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=331517#ixzz1WXXjDLg4

Eh, you jumped the gun a bit, Gunner. The case was decided today:

"Final judgment is hereby entered for defendant [Astrue, the plaintiff
being
Taitz], dismissing this case with prejudice."

Ouch! That's not a common thing to do. The judge is threatening Taitz with
imprisonment now:

08/30/2011 35 ORDER denying 12[RECAP] Motion to Compel; denying 18[RECAP]
Motion to Strike; denying 19[RECAP] Motion for Clarification; denying
20[RECAP] Motion for Default Judgment; and denying 22[RECAP] Motion to
Compel. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on August 30, 2011.
(lcrcl2)
(Entered: 08/30/2011)

08/30/2011 34 ORDER granting 21[RECAP] defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on August 30, 2011.
(lcrcl2) (Entered: 08/30/2011)

08/30/2011 33 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth
on
August 30, 2011. (lcrcl2) (Entered: 08/30/2011)

[From the judge deciding the case] "As her numerous filings with the Court
demonstrate, plaintiff will stop at nothing to get to the bottom of this
alleged conspiracy. Unfortunately for plaintiff, today is not her lucky
day.

"Her vehement allegations of fraud consist of mere 'bare suspicion[s]' and
thus fail to satisfy the public interest standard required under FOIA.
Id.4

"Anyone who knowingly and willfully uses SSNVS to request or obtain
information from SSA under false pretenses violates Federal law and may be
punished by a fine, imprisonment or both. Id. at 5. As with the
registration
acknowledgement form discussed above, the Court can only conclude that
plaintiff has submitted a page that some individual obtained under false
pretenses; that is, by representing himself as the President's employer.
The
Court notes that both documents submitted by plaintiff are incomplete; the
address on the registration acknowledgment form and the employer
identification number on the SSNVS page have been blacked out, further
confirming the documents' fraudulent origins. For all of these reasons,
the
Court will disregard both documents as well as any arguments made in
reliance on them."


Gunner, you're hereby appointed Chief Bull-Goose Birther Loony, one of the
few gullible saps left in North America who still believes Taitz's crap.

Hat's off to you. It must not be easy to be such a perpetual sucker. Most
such people are either dead from terminal stupidity or walking around in
circles, talking to themselves.

Naw Ed. You've just proved Gunner with the definitive proof that the
documents are false.

After all a federal judge wouldn't have dismissed the case unless
there was something fishy going on, would he?

Of course not. It probably was to avoid further investigation into why Obama
has six toes on his left foot (the aliens really screwed that one up) and
how his mother managed to get his birth announcements into the hospital
records from which the Hawaiin newspapers made the public announcement in
1961.

It was time travel, further evidence that he's really from the planet Zork.

Gunner had better watch out for Big Nurse. She's a Democrat.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 22:56:45 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 07:17:37 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:24:18 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:24:15 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 20:02:43 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:37:58 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 05:41:40 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:05:04 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 23:08:20 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 8/28/2011 5:36 AM, john B. wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 19:26:28 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 8/27/2011 6:12 AM, ATP wrote:
"Ed wrote in message
...

"Obama's Fake wrote in message
...
An Air Force staff sergeant based in Germany says he's been AWOL
since last week because he read on the Internet that President
Barack Obama's long form birth certificate is a fraud.

Inspired by fellow birther, Army doctor Terrence Lakin, Staff
Sgt. Daryn J. Moran has plastered the Internet with the news
that he's deserting his post as an ophthalmology technician
overseas.

'Sounds like the dude has some prison time coming.

--
Ed Huntress
Not enough, unfortunately. Desertions and bogus claims of military service
don't seem to be punished severely in these modern times. I hope our
national defense is not impaired by the loss of this opthalmology
technician....


Military justice has been and remains an oxymoron. Case in point;
William Calley convicted of leading the massacre of hundreds of
civilians in My Lai, Vietnam. Sentenced to 40 months imprisonment; of
which most of it was spent in his quarters on a military base in Georgia.

So if all they do to you for massacring hundreds of people is what
Calley got then you can expect that same kind of lack of justice
throughout the entire system.

Hawke

Actually Calley was convicted of killing 22 people. Not hundreds.

Cheers,

John B.



We don't give a hoot what the man was "convicted" of. We know what he
did. He lead a massacre of hundreds of civilian old men, women, and
children. His punishment was so far below the level of the crime it's a
joke. Which just proves my point; the words justice and military never
ought to be used in the same sentence.

Hawke

Yes! And Gunner appears to advocate the culling of the political left
- ****! Lets get him too. And that damned guy from N.J. who keeps
researching things and poking holes in the best political theories.
What the hell, we know they are bad people lets just toss them in the
Hoosegow; don't need no damned trial, just get 'um.

What the hell; lets not even bother with a trial and all that
foolishness, just send the boys around and knock on the door. Shoot
'um right there on the doorstep.

Getting me..may take a great deal more than you would imagine.

As for Lets shoot em right at the door...who is the We you are referring
to?

If its the Leftwing...they are already the walking dead. If its the
rightwing....they will do far more than a merciful bullet.

Interesting that a bloke who claims so much education can't seem to
understand the benefits of a legal system.

And, by the way, Calley was charged with 22 counts of murder,
convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Cheers,

John B.

And he was let out of prison in about 3 yrs. Odd that, eh?

Is he still around?

Gunner

He petitioned the federal district court for habeas corpus on February
11, 1974, which was granted on September 25, 1974, along with his
immediate release, by federal judge J. Robert Elliott. Judge Elliott
found that Calley's trial had been prejudiced by pretrial publicity,
denial of subpoenas of certain defense witnesses, refusal of the
United States House of Representatives to release testimony taken in
executive session of its My Lai investigation, and inadequate notice
of the charges.

Subsequently, , President Nixon issued Calley a limited Presidential
Pardon. His general court-martial conviction and dismissal from the
U.S. Army were upheld, however, the prison sentence and subsequent
parole obligations were commuted to time served.


Cheers,

John B.


Yes indeed. Time served. 3 yrs of a life sentence.

Seems like Calley took the best deal he could get..and the courts were
more than happy to give him one.

And you dont consider that to be in the slightest bit odd.....?

VBG

Gunner

Not odd at all. Calley was a ****-up. some of his people referred to
him as a "kid playing at soldiers".
The company commander had briefed the troops to "that the women and
children would be out of the hamlet and all they could expect to
encounter would be the enemy. The soldiers were to explode brick
homes, set fire to thatch homes, shoot livestock, poison wells, and
destroy the enemy.

The assault was to be made by the 1st and 2nd platoon with the 3rd
held in reserve. Thus the 1st & 2nd platoons were first into the
village. Subsequent reports were that the 1st platoon kill between 90
and 120 Vietnamese, the 2nd platoon killed 60 - 70 Vietnamese and the
3rd platoon who followed the first two platoons into the village were
said to have killed 7 - 12 women and kids.

During the entire assault there was no communication failure between
the platoons and the company commander who was in communication with
the Task Force Commander who was in a "command helicopter" during the
assault.

Some of the first mention of killing civilians came form the gun ship
pilots so apparently the terrain was open enough that aircraft could
observe what was going on.

So here we have an affair involving the possibility that civilians
were deliberately killed and the command structure seems to be two Lts
plus one who was a "****-up". The company commander was on the
fast-track for major and the task force commander, a Lt. Col., in
direct and visual command of the operation.

Anyone who spent much time in the service knows what happened, the
wolves were catching up with the sleigh so the chucked the least
valuable passenger overboard, and it is likely that the president knew
too, thus his rather unique pardon.

Cheers,

John B.

Odd that Mai Lai occured during President Johnsons (D) administration
and was prosecuted under Nixon (R) some 3 yrs later.

"Of the 26 officers and soldiers initially charged for their part in the
My Lai Massacre or the subsequent cover-up, only Calley was convicted."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley

Seems Democrats try to hide such things...Republicans hold them to the
fire.

Gunner

And now you are telling us that the Army is democratic?

Cheers,

John B.

What..the people in Charge of the Army dont make the rules?

You do know that each administration controls the Army (and other
services) and sets policy...right?

Oh..sorry..I keep forgetting you really ARE stupid.

Pity about that eh wot?

Gunner, shaking his head at the bozo.


And you claim to have been in the army?

As to each administration setting policy, what policy are you talking
about? The policy that we are going to invade Iraq, or the policy that
we are going to lighten up on the first termers and maybe get more of
them will reenlist?

If the first, it is not the Military's part to decide whom to invade;
if the second, the civilians don't give a rat's ass so they stay out
of that end of the business.

But you are drifting away from the theme - can we believe Gunner who
says that while the president must tell the truth the peasants are not
required to.

And, I might add, you don't seem able to answer the question I asked
about whether you believe that the Army is a democratic organization?

Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 07:25:34 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 03:56:24 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:56:04 +0700, john B.
wrote:


Johnny...they have indeed presented it to many courts of law. And nearly
ALL of the courts have refused to hear it. Would you want to be the
judge that was responsible for the removal of a US president?


Why not. After all that is what they threatened Agnew with -
prosecution for taking bribes - and he believed that they would. The
people who were set to get rid of Clinton, Nixon and Johnson certainly
weren't afraid.

Agnew wasnt a Democrat...was he? Hummm?

And Clinton had a solidly Republican Congress..and they certainly didnt
impeach him now did they? Hummmm?

Several courts have not refused to hear it..and have ruled that the
state of Hawaii is required to present Obamas birth cert.

So far..Hawaii has....refused.

For someone who posts..you sure dont seem to know much about the
subject.

Odd that, eh wot?

Gunner

sorry, wrong again.

If you are referring to the US District Court in Honolulu you are not
correct.

What actually happened was that the judge, Richard L. Puglisi, issued
an order that required the Hawaii Department of Health appear in
federal court Sept. 14 to show cause why Taitz should be prevented
from seeing whatever original 1961 documents the agency has on record
regarding Barack Obama's birth.

This is somewhat different from what you said. No demand to present
any certificates was made.

It is an order to show cause only. If the Department of Health cannot
show cause then the next step is the issuance of an order to disclose
the document.

You have, as they say, got the cart before the horse.

Cheers,

John B.

Incorrect. As they say...the horse is on the proper end..despite your
hopes and dreams of change.....VBG

The July 5 subpoena granted Taitz by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Hawaii was supposed to allow her to examine the original
1961 Obama birth certificate:

The Department of records REFUSED to allow her to see it as a "privacy
matter"

This despite the alleged PUBLIC release of the birth cert in question.

So now its been taken back to the District Court for enforcement.

The sad part of it is...that a visual examination probably wont be able
to determine if the newly manufactured fraudulant document is real or
not. Im sure the Obama has paid someone in the No Such Agencies to
generate a decent forgery this time. Its been long enough since July
to have done this neatly.


Read mo Court tells Hawaii officials to explain Obama's birth records
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=331517#ixzz1WXXjDLg4

Eh, you jumped the gun a bit, Gunner. The case was decided today:

"Final judgment is hereby entered for defendant [Astrue, the plaintiff being
Taitz], dismissing this case with prejudice."

Ouch! That's not a common thing to do. The judge is threatening Taitz with
imprisonment now:

08/30/2011 35 ORDER denying 12[RECAP] Motion to Compel; denying 18[RECAP]
Motion to Strike; denying 19[RECAP] Motion for Clarification; denying
20[RECAP] Motion for Default Judgment; and denying 22[RECAP] Motion to
Compel. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on August 30, 2011. (lcrcl2)
(Entered: 08/30/2011)

08/30/2011 34 ORDER granting 21[RECAP] defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on August 30, 2011.
(lcrcl2) (Entered: 08/30/2011)

08/30/2011 33 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on
August 30, 2011. (lcrcl2) (Entered: 08/30/2011)

[From the judge deciding the case] "As her numerous filings with the Court
demonstrate, plaintiff will stop at nothing to get to the bottom of this
alleged conspiracy. Unfortunately for plaintiff, today is not her lucky day.

"Her vehement allegations of fraud consist of mere 'bare suspicion[s]' and
thus fail to satisfy the public interest standard required under FOIA. Id.4

"Anyone who knowingly and willfully uses SSNVS to request or obtain
information from SSA under false pretenses violates Federal law and may be
punished by a fine, imprisonment or both. Id. at 5. As with the registration
acknowledgement form discussed above, the Court can only conclude that
plaintiff has submitted a page that some individual obtained under false
pretenses; that is, by representing himself as the President's employer. The
Court notes that both documents submitted by plaintiff are incomplete; the
address on the registration acknowledgment form and the employer
identification number on the SSNVS page have been blacked out, further
confirming the documents' fraudulent origins. For all of these reasons, the
Court will disregard both documents as well as any arguments made in
reliance on them."


Gunner, you're hereby appointed Chief Bull-Goose Birther Loony, one of the
few gullible saps left in North America who still believes Taitz's crap.

Hat's off to you. It must not be easy to be such a perpetual sucker. Most
such people are either dead from terminal stupidity or walking around in
circles, talking to themselves.

Naw Ed. You've just proved Gunner with the definitive proof that the
documents are false.

After all a federal judge wouldn't have dismissed the case unless
there was something fishy going on, would he?

Cheers,

John B.

Provided, that is :-)
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 23:09:13 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 07:25:34 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 03:56:24 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:56:04 +0700, john B.
wrote:


Johnny...they have indeed presented it to many courts of law. And nearly
ALL of the courts have refused to hear it. Would you want to be the
judge that was responsible for the removal of a US president?


Why not. After all that is what they threatened Agnew with -
prosecution for taking bribes - and he believed that they would. The
people who were set to get rid of Clinton, Nixon and Johnson certainly
weren't afraid.

Agnew wasnt a Democrat...was he? Hummm?

And Clinton had a solidly Republican Congress..and they certainly didnt
impeach him now did they? Hummmm?

Several courts have not refused to hear it..and have ruled that the
state of Hawaii is required to present Obamas birth cert.

So far..Hawaii has....refused.

For someone who posts..you sure dont seem to know much about the
subject.

Odd that, eh wot?

Gunner

sorry, wrong again.

If you are referring to the US District Court in Honolulu you are not
correct.

What actually happened was that the judge, Richard L. Puglisi, issued
an order that required the Hawaii Department of Health appear in
federal court Sept. 14 to show cause why Taitz should be prevented
from seeing whatever original 1961 documents the agency has on record
regarding Barack Obama's birth.

This is somewhat different from what you said. No demand to present
any certificates was made.

It is an order to show cause only. If the Department of Health cannot
show cause then the next step is the issuance of an order to disclose
the document.

You have, as they say, got the cart before the horse.

Cheers,

John B.

Incorrect. As they say...the horse is on the proper end..despite your
hopes and dreams of change.....VBG

The July 5 subpoena granted Taitz by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Hawaii was supposed to allow her to examine the original
1961 Obama birth certificate:

The Department of records REFUSED to allow her to see it as a "privacy
matter"

This despite the alleged PUBLIC release of the birth cert in question.

So now its been taken back to the District Court for enforcement.

The sad part of it is...that a visual examination probably wont be able
to determine if the newly manufactured fraudulant document is real or
not. Im sure the Obama has paid someone in the No Such Agencies to
generate a decent forgery this time. Its been long enough since July
to have done this neatly.


Read mo Court tells Hawaii officials to explain Obama's birth records
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=331517#ixzz1WXXjDLg4

Eh, you jumped the gun a bit, Gunner. The case was decided today:

"Final judgment is hereby entered for defendant [Astrue, the plaintiff being
Taitz], dismissing this case with prejudice."

Ouch! That's not a common thing to do. The judge is threatening Taitz with
imprisonment now:

08/30/2011 35 ORDER denying 12[RECAP] Motion to Compel; denying 18[RECAP]
Motion to Strike; denying 19[RECAP] Motion for Clarification; denying
20[RECAP] Motion for Default Judgment; and denying 22[RECAP] Motion to
Compel. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on August 30, 2011. (lcrcl2)
(Entered: 08/30/2011)

08/30/2011 34 ORDER granting 21[RECAP] defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on August 30, 2011.
(lcrcl2) (Entered: 08/30/2011)

08/30/2011 33 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on
August 30, 2011. (lcrcl2) (Entered: 08/30/2011)

[From the judge deciding the case] "As her numerous filings with the Court
demonstrate, plaintiff will stop at nothing to get to the bottom of this
alleged conspiracy. Unfortunately for plaintiff, today is not her lucky day.

"Her vehement allegations of fraud consist of mere 'bare suspicion[s]' and
thus fail to satisfy the public interest standard required under FOIA. Id.4

"Anyone who knowingly and willfully uses SSNVS to request or obtain
information from SSA under false pretenses violates Federal law and may be
punished by a fine, imprisonment or both. Id. at 5. As with the registration
acknowledgement form discussed above, the Court can only conclude that
plaintiff has submitted a page that some individual obtained under false
pretenses; that is, by representing himself as the President's employer. The
Court notes that both documents submitted by plaintiff are incomplete; the
address on the registration acknowledgment form and the employer
identification number on the SSNVS page have been blacked out, further
confirming the documents' fraudulent origins. For all of these reasons, the
Court will disregard both documents as well as any arguments made in
reliance on them."


Gunner, you're hereby appointed Chief Bull-Goose Birther Loony, one of the
few gullible saps left in North America who still believes Taitz's crap.

Hat's off to you. It must not be easy to be such a perpetual sucker. Most
such people are either dead from terminal stupidity or walking around in
circles, talking to themselves.

Naw Ed. You've just proved Gunner with the definitive proof that the
documents are false.

After all a federal judge wouldn't have dismissed the case unless
there was something fishy going on, would he?

Cheers,

John B.


Did you notice that the judge dismissed the case "with prejudice"?

Care to offer up to the readers what that means?

Sure.
Dismissal with prejudice means that a party's legal rights have in
fact been determined and lost. That dismissal is a judgment against
the plaintiff "on the merits" of the case, and extinguishes the claim
that was being sued over.

By the way, a search using your words resulted in 4,140,000 hits,
hardly a esoteric subject.


And of course...you seem to have forgotten something...

"The July 5 subpoena granted Taitz by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Hawaii was supposed to allow her to examine the original
1961 Obama birth certificate:"

And of course...you are forgetting something else....

"August 30, 2011
Judge Dismisses Suit from Birther Taitz

Several weeks after U.S. District Chief Judge Royce Lamberth issued a
rebuke to to birther activist, attorney and dentist Orly Taitz over her
handling of a Freedom of Information Act request for social security
information, Lamberth issued an order Tuesday morning dismissing the
case."

That has nothing to do with the Hawaiian Department of Records
action..which is still pending.


Now it is indeed curious as to why Obama has a Conneticut social
security number...and he nor any member of his family has ever lived in
Conneticut.

Im rather interested in that bit myself.....And Im also interested in
why Obama has a social security number that was first issued in 1987

VBG

Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:29:06 +0700, john B.
wrote:


After all a federal judge wouldn't have dismissed the case unless
there was something fishy going on, would he?

Cheers,

John B.

Provided, that is :-)
Cheers,

John B.


Read the comments section.....

http://patriotupdate.com/11598/judge...ecurity-number

Sounds like Ed and Jonnie will not do too well in the upcoming Great
Cull.

Shrug.

No loss.

Gunner

--
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry
capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an
Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense
and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have
such a man for their? president.. Blaming the prince of the
fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of
fools that made him their prince".

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:29:06 +0700, john B.
wrote:


After all a federal judge wouldn't have dismissed the case unless
there was something fishy going on, would he?

Cheers,

John B.

Provided, that is :-)
Cheers,

John B.


Read the comments section.....

http://patriotupdate.com/11598/judge...ecurity-number

Sounds like Ed and Jonnie will not do too well in the upcoming Great
Cull.

Shrug.

No loss.

Gunner

The judge ruled "with prejudice" because the documents that Orly produced to
support her case are fraudulent. That could get her disbarred or behind
bars.

Likewise, the SS# stuff is fraudulent, and has been filled with documented
misstatements from the beginning. Obama was underage when he was supposedly
working (13 or 14) in Hawaii. If he was working, it was under the table,
without a SS#.

The birthers will keep cooking up phony stories, Gunner will keep cutting
and pasting them, and so on, because they need these stories to justify
their sorry existence.

If you spent half that time clearing up your military record, Gunner, you'd
have VA coverage and be less of a parasite on society. But that wouldn't
satisfy your emotional need to be justified in what you have called your
many "mistakes."

Carry on. I've never had to hide out from myself, so I don't know what
emotional nightmare you may be going through. You really aren't doing any
harm and you probably couldn't if you wanted to.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 09:51:31 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:29:06 +0700, john B.
wrote:


After all a federal judge wouldn't have dismissed the case unless
there was something fishy going on, would he?

Cheers,

John B.

Provided, that is :-)
Cheers,

John B.


Read the comments section.....

http://patriotupdate.com/11598/judge...ecurity-number

Sounds like Ed and Jonnie will not do too well in the upcoming Great
Cull.

Shrug.

No loss.

Gunner

Whatever are you talking about?

Announcing it's not her lucky day, a federal judge in Washington,
D.C., has told an eligibility attorney he has dismissed her case
demanding information from the Social Security Administration
regarding President Obama's Social Security number, sought because of
suspicions it may be fraudulent.

Ho Hum. The birthers get shot down again.

Does your post somehow correlate with your previous quote about only
the President is required to tell the truth and indicates that anyone
who is rational gets culled and only the schemers and plotters are
going to be left?
Cheers,

John B.

Gunner Asch wrote:


What..the people in Charge of the Army dont make the rules?

You do know that each administration controls the Army (and other
services) and sets policy...right?

Oh..sorry..I keep forgetting you really ARE stupid.

Pity about that eh wot?

Gunner, shaking his head at the bozo.


Like the bozos on sf.written who never served, but know EVERYTHING
about the military.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.