Below is a sample of a not untypical response which those of us who have been writing about this case have been receiving. Note particularly the smug condescending tone of the opening insult. The commenter has reluctantly agreed to descend from the rarefied atmosphere of his purported legal expertise to clarify these obtuse issues for us woefully uninformed laymen.
I think it might be helpful here to remind commenters such as the above mentioned that we are all of us laymen. For all of us there are innumerable subjects about which we may know little or nothing. To allow oneself to get puffed up over one's accumulation of knowledge in one particular field of expertise lays one open to questions about one's ignorance in all of those other areas. For most of the genuine experts I have had the pleasure of meeting or corresponding with, they have all seemed to share an easy familiarity with this concept of comparative ignorance. It is simply called humility. But for some, unfortunately, this character trait is noticeably absent. And for those of us who by force of circumstance must deal with these arrogant pomposities we must choose to either try to deflate them or if possible to just ignore them. Read the small sample below and you'll quickly see what I mean.
"Ok, I will try to explain this as simply as I can because it’s obvious that none of you know a thing about how this works:The now famous Berg v. Obama case to which this commenter refers is a perfect example of this problem. It is by definition a legal issue which calls for a certain degree of legal competence to comprehend the complexities involved. Yet we need not have a law degree to recognize these attacks for what they most certainly are. They are simply rebuttals. Not just professional dissenting opinions, but hot angry and impassioned denials. These respondents are not just interested in refuting the facts of this case; they are seeking to totally discredit and destroy the opposing advocate, whom they repeatedly characterize as an incompetent -- or worse.
1) The order filed by Berg requesting certain items regarding Obama’s citizenship is a BLANK ORDER. It’s not signed by the court’s judge (Surrick). It’s common practice for attorneys to draft up orders in their favor so all the judge has to do is sign it if he/she grants the attorney’s wishes. However, the court already DENIED Berg’s first motion back in August [1], and Berg submitted another motion asking Obama and the DNC to submit documents by October 15th. This motion is moot because the judge has NOT signed it and will most likely dismiss it (again) for reasons I explained earlier (Berg lacks legal standing to sue ..."
However, to this particular layman it seems -- despite the labyrinth of legalise with which the liberal opposition has attempted to obscure the real issue involved here -- that if the Obama supporters are resting their case on their desperate attempts to define Atty. Berg as a 'nutcase' they have little ground to stand on. His resume alone would preclude this assumption. Yet how often have we read this same line of defense -- that Berg and his whole absurd case are inconsequential because he's a nutcase?
Well, to me, this nutcase's simple question -- "If you are a natural born citizen, Mr. Obama, what are you hiding?" is simply overwhelming. And the silence is simply deafening.
Well, Mr. Obama -- What are you hiding?