http://tinyurl.com/4846kf


United States District Court Judge, Honorable R. Barclay Surrick orders
Obama to produce the following:
1. Obama's "vault" version (certified copy of his "original" long version)
Birth Certificate; and
2. A certified copy of Obama's Certification of Citizenship;
3. A Certified copy of Obama's Oath of Allegiance

Obama can't produce them because he doesn't have them. He's a fraud. He's a
Muslim and part of an Al Queda plot to take over the country, soon to be
thwarted.

It appears that Hillary is going to be the new Democrat candidate real
soon....

Perhaps there is a god.

--
Gregory Hall

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 20:19:56 -0400, "Gregory Hall"
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/4846kf


United States District Court Judge, Honorable R. Barclay Surrick orders
Obama to produce the following:
1. Obama's "vault" version (certified copy of his "original" long version)
Birth Certificate; and
2. A certified copy of Obama's Certification of Citizenship;
3. A Certified copy of Obama's Oath of Allegiance

Obama can't produce them because he doesn't have them.

I'm quite sure I don't have all of thiose documents for myself, and
you don't have them for yourself, either.

Meanwhile, here's an editorial from George W Bush's hometown newspaper
in Crawford, TX:

http://www.lonestaricon.com/absolute...p?a=3337&z=290

EDITORIAL
Sunday, October 05, 2008
By Nathan Diebenow, Don M. Fisher, W. Leon Smith

*We Trust Obama
**/2008 Presidential Endorsement/*

So, how’s that free market economy working for you?

This time four years ago, The Lone Star Iconoclast, as the hometown
newspaper for President George W. Bush, endorsed Sen. John Kerry for
president. Back then, we wholeheartedly believed Kerry would restore
order to the chaos of the previous Bush term. Now, we feel called to
return for a moment from exile near Crawford, Texas, to witness
another presidential election and throw our two cents in...

We trust Sen. Barack Obama to be our next President of the United
States.

But we disagree on so many of his issue positions. For instance, we
want our troops out of the Middle East now. We think stronger wages —
for all workers foreign and domestic living in America — should
replace all future "free trade" agreements. We will support "clean
coal" only when Al Gore uses his teeth to pick up the clean end of a
dog turd. And we believe that this country needs to accept that Ronald
Reagan was a complete idiot.

Still, we trust Obama.

Why? The junior senator from Illinois has shown us that it is not the
world that must change. America must change. For decades, we have
listened to money lenders like Alan Greenspan as if we wanted to
return to those Paleolithic days before Joseph’s "Seven Years of
Plenty and Famine." The next president must do more than let Jesus
take the wheel; he must be willing to throw the free market money
changers out of the temple.

Obama has paid his dues.

Given the state of our political system, Obama has still inspired
citizens young and old and across religious and ethnic lines during
his long-fought campaign. Nobody experienced this phenomenon better
than us Texans during our hotly-contested primary season. Any
political party would die for that kind of organization, drive, and
commitment. Thanks to him, this next election will attract more voters
than ever before.

Obama believes in you.

From what we’ve seen of him, Obama cares about his family and their
well-beings. He listens to his opponents and struggles with them to
find common ground. He strongly believes that America is at her best
when she helps her neighbors get ahead. So for him, this election is
not about him. It’s about you. How are you? Are you happy? How is your
family? How is work? Are you living better than you were four or eight
years ago?

Vote Obama.

We will enter our voting booths justified on Nov. 4 by asking
ourselves "Who do I trust?" Obama’s opponents share the same
qualities: anger, cynicism, desperation, and disrespect. Obama has
shown us that he is taking a chance at losing this election to earn
our trust and share future prosperity among us. He believes that those
who receive the greatest material benefit from America should bear the
greatest burden of maintaining her.

Stay vigilant.

The future of America is, as it has always been, in the hands of its
citizenry. We would not have it any other way. It makes life more
interesting — freakier — even with Barack Obama in the White House.
Still, the hounds of fascism are always awake, hiding, hungry, and
ready to control.

Americans must not choose between liberty and the blessings of food,
rent, medicine, and life-sustaining necessities. Such grace is cheap.
We must instead nourish our freedom.

Now that the Iconoclast/ /has said its piece, it will return to its
exile and gather its energy for another day. May you pursue your
happiness with hope, grace, love, and decency in community.

— Nathan Diebenow, Don M. Fisher, W. Leon Smith

On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 06:36:23 -0400, salty wrote:

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 20:19:56 -0400, "Gregory Hall"
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/4846kf


United States District Court Judge, Honorable R. Barclay Surrick orders
Obama to produce the following:
1. Obama's "vault" version (certified copy of his "original" long
version) Birth Certificate; and
2. A certified copy of Obama's Certification of Citizenship; 3. A
Certified copy of Obama's Oath of Allegiance

Obama can't produce them because he doesn't have them.

I'm quite sure I don't have all of thiose documents for myself, and you
don't have them for yourself, either.

And, if you'll notice, the Judge didn't sign that document. In other
words, Judge Surrick hasn't ordered Obama to produce anything.

wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 20:19:56 -0400, "Gregory Hall"
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/4846kf


United States District Court Judge, Honorable R. Barclay Surrick orders
Obama to produce the following:
1. Obama's "vault" version (certified copy of his "original" long version)
Birth Certificate; and
2. A certified copy of Obama's Certification of Citizenship;
3. A Certified copy of Obama's Oath of Allegiance

Obama can't produce them because he doesn't have them.

I'm quite sure I don't have all of thiose documents for myself, and
you don't have them for yourself, either.

Meanwhile, here's an editorial from George W Bush's hometown newspaper
in Crawford, TX:

http://www.lonestaricon.com/absolute...p?a=3337&z=290

EDITORIAL
Sunday, October 05, 2008
By Nathan Diebenow, Don M. Fisher, W. Leon Smith

*We Trust Obama
**/2008 Presidential Endorsement/*

So, how’s that free market economy working for you?


A tiny bit of research about the banking crisis reveals that it was not
the free market that caused it, it was *over* regulation (primarily
fannie and freddie) which compelled banks to provide mortgages to people
who did not qualify. When the housing market slumped millions of these
people defaulted because there mortgages were worth more than their
property.

It is the height of stupidity for lefties to be blaming the economic
crisis on "the free market" when it has been democrats and only
democrats over the years which put in place and then strengthened the
regulations that caused this crisis.

Stephen

Stephen Trapani wrote:
It is the height of stupidity for lefties to be blaming the economic
crisis on "the free market" when it has been democrats and only

Ah, thanks. I was wondering if the exact peak of Mount Stupidity had
been been triangulated yet.
It seems to be a moving target.

democrats over the years which put in place and then strengthened the
regulations that caused this crisis.


Strengthened the regulations or strengthened the de-regulation?
Considering that we've had 7 1/2 years of a Republican President and
12 years of Republican Congress, blaming solely "the Democrats" (note
the capitalization) seems a bit of an over-simplification.

Those darn Democrats screw up everything! They even cause warm beer!

DSK

On Oct 7, 11:17 am, wrote:
Stephen Trapani wrote:
It is the height of stupidity for lefties to be blaming the economic
crisis on "the free market" when it has been democrats and only

Ah, thanks. I was wondering if the exact peak of Mount Stupidity had
been been triangulated yet.
It seems to be a moving target.

democrats over the years which put in place and then strengthened the
regulations that caused this crisis.

Strengthened the regulations or strengthened the de-regulation?
Considering that we've had 7 1/2 years of a Republican President and
12 years of Republican Congress, blaming solely "the Democrats" (note
the capitalization) seems a bit of an over-simplification.

Those darn Democrats screw up everything! They even cause warm beer!

DSK

Well, gosh darn, 2005, when congress was warned a meltdown was going
to happen it was a DEM congress and it really was the DEMS who opposed
doing anything about it. Remember, the president doesnt introduce
legislation.

On Oct 7, 8:06*am, Stephen Trapani wrote:
....
A tiny bit of research about the banking crisis reveals that it was not
the free market that caused it, it was *over* regulation (primarily
fannie and freddie) which compelled banks to provide mortgages to people
who did not qualify. When the housing market slumped millions of these
people defaulted because there mortgages were worth more than their
property. ...


A tiny bit more research will show any honest person that neither the
numbers nor the history work for the thesis that F&F are the primary
causes of the crisis. F&F aren't blameless but dollarwise they are
about 10% of the problem at the housing level despite holding about
half of all housing loans and the 600 billion (give or take) Alt-A/sub-
prime market has been leveraged into a 60 ish trillion dollar problem
with CDO, CDO', CDO'' and CDS's. The collateralized debt obligations
and their square and cube derivatives and the credit default swaps
were all traded in a unregulated market. (still would be if the
market hadn't evaporated).

For the anti-gov't folks a more defensible argument is that the
problem was cause by the Fed juicing the economy for the last eight
years. But, the issues run deeper than just that, too.

--Tom.

On Oct 7, 8:06*am, Stephen Trapani wrote:
....
A tiny bit of research about the banking crisis reveals that it was not
the free market that caused it, it was *over* regulation (primarily
fannie and freddie) ...

As I've said before that's a meme current mostly with folks who can't
add. I thought the following was a pretty amusing take:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/162789

-- Tom.

wrote:
On Oct 7, 8:06 am, Stephen Trapani wrote:
...
A tiny bit of research about the banking crisis reveals that it was not
the free market that caused it, it was *over* regulation (primarily
fannie and freddie) ...

As I've said before that's a meme current mostly with folks who can't
add. I thought the following was a pretty amusing take:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/162789

From that article:

"Look. There was a culture of stupid, reckless lending, of which Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac and the subprime lenders were an integral part."

Basically Fannie and Freddie regulations created a false market which
was then not subjected to enough oversight and hence abused. That's the
problem with market regulation, it creates the need for ever more
regulating. Calling this a failure of free market principles is asinine.
It's like saying communism would have worked if only the leaders had
been smart enough to be more brutal and squelch more of the citizens'
rights.

Stephen

On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:12:21 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

wrote:
On Oct 7, 8:06 am, Stephen Trapani wrote:
...
A tiny bit of research about the banking crisis reveals that it was not
the free market that caused it, it was *over* regulation (primarily
fannie and freddie) ...

As I've said before that's a meme current mostly with folks who can't
add. I thought the following was a pretty amusing take:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/162789

From that article:

"Look. There was a culture of stupid, reckless lending, of which Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac and the subprime lenders were an integral part."

Basically Fannie and Freddie regulations created a false market which
was then not subjected to enough oversight and hence abused. That's the
problem with market regulation, it creates the need for ever more
regulating. Calling this a failure of free market principles is asinine.
It's like saying communism would have worked if only the leaders had
been smart enough to be more brutal and squelch more of the citizens'
rights.

Stephen

There you go again!

Bwhahahahaha!