[curiosity]

No, actually it's completely relevant because you think the existence of the book proves he didn't commit fraud.

There's birther debating tactic #2: shifting the burden of proof.

You see, the onus is on Obama to prove he DIDN'T commit fraud, not on birthers to prove he did. Nice job of staying on script, edge919!

[edge919]

I didn’t shift the burden of proof. James said, “People trying to commit fraud don’t publish books about the fradulent activity twelve years in advance of the so-called ‘fraud.’” It’s James’ onus to prove Obama knew he was going to run for president when he wrote that book, as that’s the only way his argument makes sense.

[zort]

the onus is on Obama to prove he DIDN'T commit fraud

Can you prove that it didn't happen?