[excon]

Why don't you do some looking for me?

Hello gal:

M,kay. What I found was lots of lawsuits from the "birthers", and Keye's, like the one below. All they prove is that people are filing lawsuits and getting them dismissed.

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A lawsuit filed by Democratic attorney Philip Berg alleging that Sen. Barack Obama is ineligible to be president was dismissed by a federal judge yesterday on grounds that Berg lacks standing to bring the lawsuit.

In a 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order, the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick concludes that ordinary citizens can't sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.

excon

[tomder55]

There were others where I pointed out this was an irrelevant point but this posting is the 1st I answered it directly

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politi...te-275470.html

#3

Regarding Obama's birth certificate ;


Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. CodeSec 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth":
Anyone born inside the United States
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S. as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
So even if the evidence shows that he was born outside the US and his Hawaii birth certificate was a fraud ;he would still be qualified .

I cannot lay the case ot any any better .It is of course suspicious that he resists attempts to clarify the issue. But it is ultimately irrelevant to the issue of his eligibilty .

[Dare81]

There were others where I pointed out this was an irrelevent point but this posting is the 1st I answered it directly

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politi...te-275470.html

#3


I cannot lay the case ot any any better .It is of course suspicious that he resists attempts to clarify the issue. But it is ultimately irrelevent to the issue of his eligibilty .

Even though you say its irrelevant you keep briniging it up.Hmmm

[tomder55]

I never bring it up . I only respond to others who do. Again... your only contribution is cat calls from the cheap seats.

[Dare81]

I never bring it up . I only respond to others who do. Again ....your only contribution is cat calls from the cheap seats.

AWWW.Am I making you angry .

[tomder55]

Not really but it is difficult to have a discussion /debate when the response is some kind of personal attack.

[galveston]

Ex proves my point.

It is expensive to fight a case in court, even if you win.

The question remains, WHY is Obama fighting disclosure when it would be far simpler to simply provide the document?

I have to provide mine if I only want a passport.

Something smells like a fish market.

[Dare81]

Ex proves my point.

It is expensive to fight a case in court, even if you win.

The question remains, WHY is Obama fighting disclosure when it would be far simpler to simply provide the document?

I have to provide mine if I only want a passport.

Something smells like a fish market.

I am sure he had to provide his to get a passport too.

[galveston]

I am sure he had to provide his to get a passport too.

Cute! But it doesn't answer the "why".

[letmetellu]

I would like to pose a question, I am not sure in what month of 2008 that it became apparent that Obama was going to win the election but in my recollection it was just about the same month that the economy went south. Does anyone think that might have been part of the cause.

I also think it is strange that doing a spell check with Obama in the post the spell checker ask you for a change to substitution.

[ETWolverine]

I would like to pose a question, I am not sure in what month of 2008 that it became apparent that Obama was going to win the election but in my recollection it was just about the same month that the economy went south. Does anyone think that might have been part of the cause.

I also think it is strange that doing a spell check with Obama in the post the spell checker ask you for a change to substitution.

First of all, correlation is NOT causation. I'm no supporter of Obama, but I don't believe that it can be argued that Obama somehow caused the collapse of the economy either as a result of his election or in order to cause his election.

Obama's election seems to have been inevitable about halfway through September. This is about a month after the collapse of the markets, but about the same time that TARP 1 was approved.

However, the economic problems actually predate 2008. The problems can actually be traced all the way back to 1927, with the creation of Fannie Mae... and unnecessary pseudo-government agency who's purpose was to make it easier for individuals to buy homes by having the government guarantee those loans to the banks. With these guarantees, ostensibly by the Federal government, banks were able to make riskier loans than they had in the past, and the risk would be mitigated by the government guarantee. Note that at the time, Fannie Mae's only purpose was to GUARANTEE loans, not purchase them or create a market for the selling and buying of loans. It was only over time that their mandate changed to purchase loans rather than to guarantee them. That is what created the derivatives markets that are being blamed (perhaps unfairly) for the entire mess. Before this, there was no bundling of mortgages and selling them wholesale to other banks or to Fannie Mae. And Banks didn't make risky loans based on the government's promise to pay or buy the loan.

The government compunded this mistake by creating Freddie Mac in 1970. The purpose of Freddie Mac was to create a body that would compete with Fannie Mae. The only problem is that both entities were owned by the same group... Congress. So there was no competition in any real sense. Furthermore, the concept of competition only exists where all parties are acting logically and in their own best interests. Fannie and Freddie were never created to act logically or in their own best interests. They were created to make it easier for people who would otherwise not be able to buy a home. From a logical standpoint, they were not operating in their own best interests because they were charging particularly low rates on their own loans and buying high risk loans at standard risk interest rates. They were not acting logically and they were not acting in their own best interests. So the rules of competition no longer apply to these entities. Profitability was not their goal. Social engineering was their goal.

The problem became MUCH worse in 1977, when Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) into law. You see, before CRA, banks were permitted to turn down loans that they considered to be too risky. If they felt that the risks were too high, even with the government guarantee behind them, they could just say no. However, after the CRA law was passed, banks were REQUIRED to make a certain percentage of their loans in areas that were financially riskier and to businesses and individuals who were of greater than average financial risk. The banks were not allowed to say no. If they refused to obey the CRA regulations, they could be fined, shut down, prevented from opening new branches, or have their operating licenses pulled.

What this meant was that not only were banks being encouraged to make high-risk loans because of a government guarantee, they were being FORCED to do so, even when they knew that the loans were going to fail. There was no way to escape the problem.

And then, in 1995 and 1996, Congress increased the problem caused by CRA by increasing the percentage of loans required to be CRA loans. Banks had to make as much as 51% of their loans within their CRA census tract and they need to track the income census tract of their loans (low income, moderate income or high income areas). That is how the law is currently written.

They made it even worse when Freddie and Fannie's regulations changed, allowing them (and thus the banks that sold loans to them) to offer high-risk products to borrowers, including the now-infamous ARM loans that had a 5-year low-interest-rate grace period, but then became high-rate mortgages after than period was over. They also loaned 100% or even 110% of the appraised values of the homes, during a time when home values were extremely high due to a "real estate bubble". The purpose was to make Fannie and Freddie more able to make loans to first-time homeowners at low introductory rates. It also, incidentally, made Fannie and Freddie more profitable, and the executives at Fannie and Freddie made HUGE multi-million-dollar bonuses during this period.

Then came the period of 2006 and 2007. Many of the grace periods of the ARM loans started ending during these two years, and interest rates on those mortgages jumped. The borrowers were unable to pay the new mortgage rates, and many of them went into bankruptcy. At that point, bankers and financial analysts started warning the public about the growing delinquency rates and foreclosure rates among banks and lenders. At the same time, the real estate bubble burst. Home values dropped, and suddenly the banks that had been relying on the appraised values of the homes to protect them found their protection lacking. The market values of the homes weren't high enough to cover the loans they had made, and even after foreclosure and sale of a "distressed property", banks ended up taking massive losses that they weren't properly reserved against.

An additional problem sprung up. Because Fannie and Freddie had created a market for it, banks were bundling bunches of mortgages together and selling them as investment instruments (Real Estate Investment Trusts or REITs) on the open market, and investors were investing huge amounts of money in them. Now the underlying loans that were the basis of the REITs were failing, and the investors (who had become the de-facto lenders) were losing massive amounts of money. Some smart investors had purchased "insurance" for the possibility that these investments would fail. There was a market for these "insurance policies", known as derivatives, and they became another major investment product. However, with so many of these policies having to pay out for losses in the REITs, the derivative products were also showing massive losses.

Borrowers were losing their homes, banks were losing their loans, investors were losing value in their investments, and the market just FROZE. No banks were willing to risk making loans that they might not get repaid for. Furthermore, there are strict rules and regulations about how much money they needed to reserve against bad debt, and the bad debt reserve was eating into the cash available for loans. Even if they had been couragous enough to make loans, they had no money to lend. Investors were getting out of the bad products, leaving the insurance companies to pay off on the insurance policies by themselves. Companies like AIG got killed because they had so much of these derivative products outstanding that they couldn't cover all the policies that were being called in. Meanwhile, because home values had dropped so much, even loans that hadn't yet failed were considered risky, because nobody knew the true value of the home in the current market. Was your loan covered or was there a shortfall? Was your loan a 20% LTV, and 80% LTV or a 120% LTV? Nobody knows.

So banks stopped ALL lending. Companies that relied on their banks for cash flow loans suddenly saw their sources of cash flow drying up, and many of them went belly-up because of it. (That's PART of what happened to the Big 3 auto makers, but only part of it.) The drying up of the credit market resulted in businesses dying.

Even worse, banks weren't lending money to each other. Is your bank suffering from massive losses due to real estate? Is your bank capable of sustaining those losses and continuing to operate? Is your bank a safe risk or not? Will my bank be paid back if we make our usual loan to you? So the inter-bank trade stopped, which killed the entire financial system for a couple of months.

The point of all of this is that it all started long before anyone had ever heard Obama's name. The causes are nothing that Obama could have caused, nor are they something he could have used as a way to get elected. It all happened too fast and too suddenly to be predicted. There were those who warned about it back in the 90s and the early 2000s. But even they were caught off guard by how fast it all took place and how quickly we felt the impact. Obama had nothing to do with how this all started.

But he DOES have a hand in what happens next... and so far he ain't doing the right things to heal the economy or fix the issues that caused the economic collapse in the first place.

Elliot

[tomder55]

I'm no supporter of Obama, but I don't believe that it can be argued that Obama somehow caused the collapse of the economy either as a result of his election or in order to cause his election.

Putting on my tin foil hat for a moment... it is a bit of a coincidence that there was a money market run ,similar to the type of manipulations George Soros has been known to engineer ,on Sept.18.:D

[ETWolverine]

I don't buy it, Tom. Soros only has power if he maintains his wealth. The economic collapse has hurt him as much as every other rich guy, he lost half his net worth... which serves only to cut his power in half. It doesn't make sense.

Elliot

[tomder55]

I don't buy into conspiracy theories either . However when you read things like this you got to wonder

George Soros interview: A very good crisis | The Australian#

And foreseeing the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression has certainly paid off financially. In August 2007, with the first symptoms of the credit crunch on the horizon, Soros came out of semi-retirement to reassume control of his Quantum investment fund, astutely repositioning it for the tsunami about to hit. By year's end Quantum was up almost 32 per cent for 2007, netting Soros profits of $US2.9 billion at a time when other financiers were struggling to break even.

His fortune was estimated at $US11 billion by Forbes in September 2008 and it has grown even larger amid the spreading financial carnage. That same year, in which Hedge Fund Research estimates the hedge fund industry lost a record 18.3 per cent, Soros was up another 9 per cent. He now believes he can step back from a hands-on role at Quantum.

[ETWolverine]

I don't buy into conspiracy theories either . However when you read things like this you gotta wonder

George Soros interview: A very good crisis | The Australian#

Interesting. And perhaps worthy of investigation by the SEC. In an environment when the smartest investors in the world (including Warren Buffet) were losing millions and even billions, Soros was making a hefty profit?

Or so he claims.

Keep in mind that Quantum is privately held. It's investors are not dislosed. It's financials are not disclosed. The funds are Cayman Islands based and Curaçao based, not US based. I haven't seen any financial statements on his funds, have you?

Could it be another Madoff case? Probably not. But nobody seems to know Soros' methodology. His "reflexivity" theory of market assessment has been proven wrong more often than right, so that ain't it. In fact, he's only been right twice so far in his predictions... the Bank of England thing and this crisis. Granted, both were huge and it is possible to make huge money in a huge drop in the market, but his hit/miss ratio is still pretty low. So assuming that what he is reporting regarding his earnings is accurate, what the heck is he doing?

Hmmmm.

[tomder55]

Agreed ;didn't he also create a monetary crisis in Asia 1997-98 ? In fact ; to deepen the conspiracy ;Tim Geithner was in the IMF at the time and according to former Aussie MP Paul Keating ,Geithner's "solution" to the crisis was dead wrong and devastated many Asian economies, in particular Indonesia.

Seems Soros is always around when capitalism comes under assault.

[speechlesstx]

Speaking of chatty Cheney...

Obama v. Cheney Heats Up

By Danielle Pletka
May 20, 2009, 11:45 am

So, the White House announced today that President Obama will deliver a “major” speech on antiterrorism policy tomorrow. The timing isn’t entirely clear, but MSNBC reports that it will be “about an hour” after former Vice President Cheney delivers an address on the same topic here at the American Enterprise Institute.

The announcement of the former Veep’s address went out officially from AEI on May 12, though he had been asked to give a talk a couple of weeks before. (We asked him because this is one of the most important national security issues of the day, and AEI is committed to informing and prompting a public debate consisting of more than sound bites.) President Obama’s speech was announced today. What do we think? 1) The Obama White House runs the savviest information ops of any White House in modern history. This is all about rebutting an increasingly effective exponent of aggressive counterterrorism policies. 2) Why do it? The simple answer is that the public is listening to Cheney on the issues, and if the Democratic Congress’s decision this week to deny funding to close Gitmo is any indication, finger-in-the-wind politicians are listening, too.

There’s another message in the former vice president’s efforts to rally the nation behind a robust policy: Americans know we are at war. They don’t want Gitmo’s denizens in their backyards. They aren’t embarrassed by their country, by their soldiers in the field, or by their public servants striving to keep them safe. Mr. President, take note: It’s not just about the air time. Leadership matters. Especially in times of war.

I think this more than anything is what irritates the left about Cheney, he gets results.

[Dare81]

putting on my tin foil hat for a moment ......it is a bit of a coincidence that there was a money market run ,simular to the type of manipulations George Soros has been known to engineer ,on Sept.18.:D

If george has that kind of a speculative power I am going to start calling him god.

[ordinaryguy]

Obama is acting more and more like the dufus. It should give you righty's wood.

Nah, he could bring Cheney back as VP, and it still wouldn't be enough for them. Appeasement never works.

[excon]

Hello again,

The thing that is so disheartening, is that Cheney hasn't changed his position one iota. The Obadufus, on the other hand, is changing every minute. He looks a deer caught in the headlights.

I'm waiting for the Obama speech. He's a wimp.

excon