View Full Version : for anybody waiting for an 'October Surprise' ... this is it !
Melonie
10-16-2008, 03:24 AM
as I said at the beginning, this issue is NOT going to go away ... even though this second lawsuit is getting practically zero coverage in US media
(snip)"The complaint seeks specifically that the office of the Washington Secretary of State verify and certify that Mr. Obama is or is not a “natural born” citizen by producing original or certified verifiable official documents. The lawsuit argues that this certification should take place before the election to preclude a constitutional crisis and likely civil unrest should such certification, after the election, prove that Mr. Obama was not qualified for office.
The Complaint argues that the Secretary of State has the authority and duty to not only certify the voters but also and most importantly the candidates and in so doing prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters who would had had an opportunity to choose from qualified candidates had the certification preceded the election process.
At this point, Mr. Obama has not allowed independent or official access to his birth records nor supporting hospital records. The Hawaii Health Department has violated Federal law by ignoring formal Freedom of Information requests for the same. Due to the facts and numerous other allegations that would challenge Mr. Obama’s fundamental qualifications for office, a Federal lawsuit was filed and is currently being heard in District Court, Pennsylvania.
Mr. Obama failed to respond to the District Court’s request to produce or allow access to the official documents (should they exist) and instead filed a motion to dismiss arguing the Plaintiff had no “standing” or right to know. This non-response as of 9/24/2008 in Federal court casts doubt on the veracity of the electoral system and is the principal reason for this lawsuit. The late entry of this suit is due in principal part to Mr. Obama’s delay and subsequent non response to reasonable request for valid certificates. Multiple requests for early certification to the Office of the Secretary of State has been rejected.
[clarification: The district court process itself demands a response from Mr. Obama. When a complaint is filed, the defendant has an opportunity to respond to the judge regarding the plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction. Obama did respond, but not with the requested documentation, not even minimally so. He responded with a motion for dismissal based on “standing” rather than the merits of the case]
The Washington Secretary of State Office is specifically charged with certifying and guaranteeing the veracity of official documents and overseeing the elections to wit the people’s confidence in the fundamental aspect of democracy is maintained. To date, in this regard, Secretary of State Sam Reed has not carried out that fundamental duty. "(snip)
from
given that this second lawsuit makes use of a 'new angle' i.e. the duty of each state's secretary of state to verify and certify that all candidates put forward on each states' election ballot are qualified to hold the office they seek, it's extremely probable that this Washington lawsuit will also prompt the other 49 state sec's of state to request official verification from Obama.
threlayer
10-16-2008, 01:11 PM
IF it is true, you're right, it'll not go away. We will have to see how this settles.
If he is disqualified, this will lead to a Constitutional crisis if after the election and a scurried attempt to place Biden (possibly) in position or a Supreme Court decision if done before. My bet is that this won't happen until after the election. At least it was an interesting post.
Lucy in the Sky
10-16-2008, 01:23 PM
No reputable news source is carrying this shit because it is shit pure and simple. it's fake, false all lies creating by butt hurt Republicans who can't handle the idea of losing to a Democrat much less a mixed race Democrat.
If it this story had even the slightest bit of truth to Obama would not have ever been allowed in this election. We are 19 days away and he is still in it and leading the way. Learn to deal with reality already. Geez!
Melonie
10-16-2008, 02:42 PM
^^^ well, if you or anybody from mainstream media had bothered to check it out, the second lawsuit is case # 08-2-34955-1 filed by 'Marquis, Steven R' on '10-10-08' in King County Superior Court ( which covers Seattle ).
francescadubois
10-16-2008, 02:58 PM
^Melonie, do you want Obama to win? You say you're voting for him, yet you post essays that discourage people 1) from voting and 2) for voting for Obama.
I saw in another post you said that you were voting for Obama, so I'm just confused.
Melonie
10-16-2008, 03:14 PM
I don't have an agenda of trying to convince other Americans to vote one way or the other. If there is any agenda stemming from my Members Area posts, it is to continue pointing out that there are 'two sides to every story' even if mainstream media only chooses to report one side.
As to my personal motivation to vote for Obama, as a libertarian I believe that an Obama presidency will be the best choice for America in the long run. However, you may not agree with my logic ... which is as follows.
If McCain is elected, and if opposed by Democratic majorities in both houses of congress, odds are that most gov't policies and new laws will follow democratic / liberal agendas. If the result of these policies and laws is that the US economy is still bad ... if the world terrorist situation worsens etc., in 2012 the democrats will be able to 'blame' at least some of the bad results on McCain i.e. a republican.
However, if Obama is elected, in conjunction with democratic majorities in both houses of congress it is guaranteed that every new gov't policy and new law will follow a democratic / liberal agenda. Thus if the result of these policies and laws is that the US economy is still bad in 2012 ... if the world terrorist situation worsens etc., there won't be any republicans in a position of power upon whom the democrats can attempt to lay the blame.
As a result, it is very likely that an Obama presidency will be followed by a major republican / conservative backlash in 2012 which will bring a republican / conservative president plus republican majorities in both houses of congress ... much like Jimmy Carter was followed by the 'Reagan Revolution'.
francescadubois
10-16-2008, 03:19 PM
Ok. Got it. Thanks.
Lucy in the Sky
10-16-2008, 06:46 PM
Nevermind. Not wasting my time with this stupid and false accusation any further.
Paris
10-16-2008, 07:11 PM
Here's an article about Steven R. Marquis' lawsuit from a Spokane Washington newspaper (Spokesman Review). (http://www.spokesmanreview.com/blogs/olympia/)
You might find this interesting, Mel;
(snip)FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.(snip)
threlayer
10-16-2008, 07:12 PM
So you want a failed Obama presidency to teach us that the Republicans, even with their authoritarian outlook on our personal lives, would have been a better choice for a libertarian.
I think that is just cynical.
Melonie
10-17-2008, 01:40 AM
FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate
choosing a name like FactCheck does not automatically make an organization free of political bias. FactCheck is funded by the Chicago Annenberg organization ... which means that former Annenberg board member Barack Obama once paid their salaries !!!
(snip)"The full name of FactCheck.org is The Annenberg Political Fact Check.
The Annenberg Political Fact Check is part of the Annenberg Public Policy Center.
Also part of the Annenberg Public Policy Center was the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was founded by William Ayers, and to which he recruited the young Barack Obama. This was Barack Obama’s first big-boy job."(snip)
from
and more to the point, FactCheck's 'facts' in regard to Obama's birth certificate have already been questioned ...
(snip)"Factcheck.org posted 9 photographs of what it claimed were different aspects of Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth", all in less than optimal and idiosyncratic lighting conditions. All of them were taken over a less than seven minute period on March 12, 2008 from 10:40:18 to 10:47:02 at night.
No wonder FactCheck sufficed left it a vague "spend some time" when the duration of the entire photography session took 6 minutes and 44 seconds. Talk about: "Wham, bam, thank you, Obama!" Does that sound like a serious and thorough examination to
FactCheck will need to explain these hard chronological facts, which can be verified from the published photos by anyone with an EXIF reading tool, publically available on the net and as part of graphics software.
If the embedded graphical information is correct, it means that FactCheck is lying about doing the photo session "recently" and may be lying about much more, since it would be implausible that "FactCheck" was even checking facts about the birth certificate in March 2008.
Factcheck may try to argue that the photographer "forgot" to set the correct time. But that would further illuminate the shoddy level of professionalism in disregarding the need for exact documentation of the date, a carelessness echoed in the introductory remarks of its article ("recently" is not a fact, especially when it is not clearly associated with the location of the photo shoot ? where the documents "reside" is hardly the same thing). If so, FactCheck would also need to show some other published photos published with the same camera that show an identical offset between the camera's time and the real time.
Exactly for such reasons -- the lack of professionalism, exactitude and transparency concerning the provenance of this paper and the circumstances of the photographic session -- the reasonable demand from the skeptics -- who were initially made suspicious by the fact that the purported certificate image was published first (initially in relatively low resolution and only later in high resolution) in the far-left partisan Daily Kos blog -- has always been that the paper certificate must be subjected to the scrutiny of objective media or document forensics specialists, and mainstream journalists who can ask the hard question not just about this document image or that document image but examine it for themselves and query Obama himself about the many lingering mysteries and evasions in this whole affair.
It is striking, too, that Newsweek reprints the FactCheck report under the organizational byline without the minimal scrutiny that one would expect from a serious news magazine. In effect it is an advertorial serving the interests of the Obama campaign, not an objective piece of journalism. Indeed, at the end there is a credit: "Republished with permission from factcheck.org."
FactCheck itself, as a project primarily funded by the Annenberg Foundation, hardly fits the bill of being a disinterested party, especially given Obama's four year stint as founding chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, currently being investigated due to its massive withholding of papers which document the catestrophic failure of the project, including public funds wasted under Obama's leadership, and his relations in that project with former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers.
Most curious, too, is the apparent lack of curiosity of FactCheck in pursuing the original "long-form" birth certificate that was supposedly used as the basis for the short form. After all, Barack Obama refers explicitly to possessing this document in "Dreams from My Father". Since FactCheck apparently has sufficiently close relations with the Obama teams to merit the exclusive privilege of being invited to "spend some time" (or at least 6 minutes and 44 seconds) with the reclusive short-form, one might think that if they were really interested in checking facts or examining original records they would doggedly pursue the paper source document -- the real thing from 47 years ago, not something cleaned and extracted from a database and thus subject to all kinds of potential revision and redaction. "(snip)
threlayer
10-17-2008, 08:17 AM
FactCheck's 'facts' in regard to Obama's birth certificate have already been questioned ...
Oh, well, that that does it then. The Israel Insider certainly is completely unbiased anmd whatever they say must be absolute fact. They couldn't possibly be stretching their imaginations in order to assure that a President they assume is not blindly on Israel's side, regardless of whatever they do, could win. No, sir.
http://www.myfoxtoledo.com/myfox/MyFox/pages/sidebar_video.jsp?contentId=7637919&version=1&locale=EN-US
A phone interview between Berg and the Fox affiliate in Toledo, Ohio where Berg I believe is from. It's a pretty interesting listen (even if you buy it or not) because it describes the parring and back and forth between the legal teams. 23 minutes long but worth listening to. One partisan comment, keep in mind Berg is a life long Democrat, not a Republican.
FBR
evan_essence
10-21-2008, 08:07 PM
Someone please explain to me how any regular citizen could possibly tell who is lying? Or more likely, who is lying more than the other side? Hmmm? Answer: They can't. When it comes to a close presidential campaign, every spin doctor, disinformation specialist and nut job comes out of the woodwork with the objective of casting aspersions to influence votes. On both sides. And anyone can file a lawsuit and make accusations. Doesn't mean squat. Nor does it mean it's any more credible because it came from a Clinton supporter. Hello! Is that not someone with a vested interest in scuttling Obama? Duh!
There isn't any way to know the truth when the BS gets this deep. It just gets me that anyone believes they can sort this out, or that it makes anything any clearer to keep piling on more layers of BS via links. It all becomes meaningless to most rational people. As it should be. There's a lot to be said in favor of knowing some basic facts about the candidates and their philosophies and then going with your gut.
And Melonie, I don't buy your claim that you want Obama to win because the resulting backlash will be better for your world view in the long run. If you wanted Obama to win, you'd be posting positive things about him in an effort to make that happen. Isn't that the way to bring about your ultimate goal? Why would you work against what you think is best for your cause? Makes no sense. Seems you're being disingenuous.
-Ev
Melonie
10-22-2008, 03:35 AM
Why would you work against what you think is best for your cause? Makes no sense. Seems you're being disingenuous.
Oh, I'm definitely serious. The reasoning is very straightforward too. As can be clearly seen from the last two years in Washington, a gov't comprised of a republican president 'against' democratic majorities in both houses of congress essentially makes it impossible for the president to put forth republican initiatives with any serious chance of having them become law. Granted that GWB wasn't likely to put forth such republican initiatives, but that's a whole 'nuther story ! Thus if McCain were to be elected, but facing democratic majorities in both houses of congress, odds are the very few republican initiatives would get passed - but democratic initiatives would still continue to be passed by the congress based on their ability to override a presidential veto or back the president into a PR corner (recent example was the increase in minimum wage to name just one). But when the 2012 election rolled around, if the unintended consequences of that democratic initiative were negative (i.e. increased unemployment and lower business profits in the case of the minimum wage example) it would still be possible for mainstream media and democratic politicians to 'blame' the president.
On the other hand, if the president as well as both houses of congress have democratic majorities, as in the Carter years it would be possible for democratic initiatives to easily become law. But when the next election rolls around, if the unintended consequences of those democratic initiatives are negative, it will be impossible for mainstream media and democratic politicians to shift the 'blame' !
As you pointed out, most American voters have no way to really tell (or refuse to make the effort to perform independent research) in regard to which political initiatives are responsible for what outcomes. Instead mainstream media (and campaign advertising to some degree at least) are the ones doing the 'telling' ... complete with spin, selective memory etc. Thus I believe that the only way that Americans can truly evaluate the consequences of democratic initiaitives is to allow them four years worth of 'free rein' in Washington to enact such initiatives, but at the same time take away the opportunity to (falsely) shift 'blame' anywhere but on their own collective heads.
LizardQueen
10-22-2008, 08:29 AM
There isn't any way to know the truth when the BS gets this deep. It just gets me that anyone believes they can sort this out, or that it makes anything any clearer to keep piling on more layers of BS via links. It all becomes meaningless to most rational people. As it should be.
Thank you!
Melonie
10-22-2008, 04:59 PM
Well we may find out the truth after all ...
(snip)Barack Obama and the DNC failed to respond to Berg’s filing of Sep. 15 within the required 30 days, which means they ADMITTED to all the charges in the filing by default. When they did not respond in any manner to any of the requests for information or documention the judge extended their deadline, and they then filed a motion for DISMISSAL and for a PROTECTIVE ORDER.
Their reasoning for requesting a protective order is that revealing the information (birth certificate, passports, citizenship in other countries) would “cause a defined and serious injury” to Obama and/or the DNC. They say revealing these documents raises a “legitimate privacy concern” and the above mentioned risk that “particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation.” (emphasis added) Then they claim Berg has no standing to ask for it.
Berg now has filed:
A) A motion requesting an immediate order deeming his request for admissions served upon Barack Obama and the DNC on September 15 admitted by default, and
B) A motion requesting an expedited ruling and/or hearing on Berg’s motion deeming the request for admissions served upon Obama and the DNC admitted.
If Judge Surrick grants these motions, Barack Obama is, at least temporarily, ineligible to run for the office of President of the United States OR to be a citizen of the United States.
There are some rumblings from the courthouse that a ruling, one way or the other, may be forthcoming by the end of this week."(snip)
(snip)"Berg contends that the failure to respond and serve the response within the time limit is “damning,” and made two appearances overnight on Rollye James’ talk radio program, the second one coming shortly after midnight, during which he disclosed the meat of today’s filings and the legal and political ramifications of the defendants’ failure to respond.
“They did not file answers or objections or anything else to the request for admissions we served upon them on September 15,” Berg said to me shortly before midnight, noting that Obama and the DNC did in fact acknowledge service of the admission in their motion for protective order. “They knew the admissions were due. They knew they must object or answer specifically in 30 days. Here, they did nothing.”
Typically, requests can be used to ascertain three types of information: (1) the veracity of facts, (2) the authenticity of documents, or (3) the “application of law to fact.” Pretty much anything not privileged is fair game, and while the idea behind such a request is to obtain information, requests for admissions of facts and of the genuine nature of documents are generally not designed as a part of discovery, per se, but rather more of a mechanism used to whittle down proof later in the proceedings.
Unless permitted by the court or allowed pursuant to a written agreement between the parties, the party served with the request must serve a response within 30 days. How serious is a failure to respond? This, from PreTrial, by Thomas A. Mauet:
The automatic provision of Rule 36 makes it a formidable weapon because inertia or inattentiveness can have an automatic, and usually devastating, consequence. Hence, there is one cardinal rule for practice under this provision: Make sure you respond and serve the response within the 30-day period.
Given the “usually devastating” consequence of failure to respond in time to a request for admissions such as those served upon Obama and the DNC on September 15, just what were some of the admissions that Berg asserts Barack Obama and the DNC have, at least procedurally, admitted to?
Admit you were born in Kenya.
Admit you are a Kenya “natural born” citizen.
Admit your foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii.
Admit your father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr., admitted Paternity of you.
Admit your mother gave birth to you in Mombosa, Kenya.
Admit your mother’s maiden name is Stanley Ann Dunham a/k/a Ann Dunham.
Admit the COLB [Certification of Live Birth] posted on the website “Fightthesmears.com” is a forgery.
Admit you were adopted by a Foreign Citizen.
Admit you were adopted by Lolo Soetoro, M.A. a citizen of Indonesia.
Admit you were not born in Hawaii.
Admit you are a citizen of Indonesia.
Admit you never took the “Oath of Allegiance” to regain your U.S. Citizenship status.
Admit you are not a “natural born” United States citizen.
Admit your senior campaign staff is aware you are not a “natural born” United States Citizen.
Admit the United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a “natural born” United States citizen.
Admit you are ineligible pursuant to the United States Constitution to serve as President and/or Vice President of the United States.
This is, however, by no means a slam dunk for Philip Berg, as there are several options for Barack Obama and the DNC at this point. The first, and most obvious, is the seemingly watertight argument that pursuant to Rule 26(f), a request for admission may only be served after the conference for the purpose of planning discovery detailed under that rule, and therefore the 30-day time limit on Berg's request has not yet begun. Here, though, Berg could feasibly argue either that the request for admissions is not a true discovery mechanism and is actually meant to streamline the future need for discovery, or that the defendants' acknowledged service of the request in their October 6 motion for protective order and failed, at that time, to specifically object or answer. The second option for the defense, somewhat related to the first, is that the motion for protective order rendered the requests null and void, but Berg may argue that the protective order effectively staying discovery was never issued by the court. Yet another option, still easily foreseen, is that Obama and the DNC could file a motion to withdraw admissions which have been deemed admitted. In order to file a motion to withdraw admissions deemed admitted by default, a party must show (1) "good cause" regarding why there was no response and (2) that such a motion to withdraw would not cause undue prejudice to the plaintiff. Here, Berg could contend that Obama and the DNC failed to meet those standards, that they cannot show "good cause" for failing to answer or object, and that withdrawing the admissions would cause undue prejudice.
Still, for Berg, the issue is clear. He simply wanted answers or objections, he said, and instead received nothing. Rule 36, according to Berg, is fairly cut-and-dry.
"It all comes down to the fact that there's nothing from the other side," Berg said. "The admissions are there. By not filing the answers or objections, the defense has admitted everything. He admits he was born in Kenya. He admits he was adopted in Indonesia. He admits that the documentation posted online is a phony. And he admits that he is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States."(snip)
from
Richard_Head
10-23-2008, 12:06 AM
Here's a couple of October surprises for you.
Al-Qaida endorses McCain.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081022/ap_on_el_pr/al_qaida_us_election_2
KKK endorses McCain.
http://bloggerinterrupted.com/2008/10/video-mccain-wins-big-endorsement-kkk
Melonie
10-23-2008, 02:52 AM
^^^ neither endorsement will prevent McCain from being president ... which is arguably not the case if Judge Surrick approves Berg's motions !
Miss_Luscious
10-23-2008, 05:36 AM
Other than the fact that Berg is just obviously crazy (he's also a 9/11 truther), here are a couple folks who went through his claims and refuted them:
Listing of every allegation made by Berg and showing there is no evidence behind each one:
One (http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/2008/09/was-obama-born.html)
Two (http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/2008/09/was-obama-bor-1.html)
Another site going through Berg's claims and showing how they are false:
Source (http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/10/someone_is_lyin.html)
Here are the main points of the lawsuit:
1.) Obama's birth certificate is fake
2.) Obama moved to Indonesia when he was young, which didn't recognize dual citizenship, so they claim that he had to renounce his United States citizenship.
3.) When he moved back to the United States he didn't go through any sort of re-naturalization process.
Specifically, point 1 is just flat out false. The document has been examined by multiple organizations including factcheck.org (Berg doesn't accept their investigation because he claims they are run by Annenberg of Chicago which Obama sits on the board of. Obama sat on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, factcheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. both receive funding from the Annenberg Foundation. Very tenuous conflict of interests): Source (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html.). Even World Net Daily isn't crazy enough to claim it to be fake: Source (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214)
On point 2, a minor cannot expatriate himself and neither can his parents. Source (http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/expatriation.htm)
With point 2 invalidated, point 3 is as well.
Now stop it.
Eric Stoner
10-23-2008, 07:41 AM
Other than the fact that Berg is just obviously crazy (he's also a 9/11 truther), here are a couple folks who went through his claims and refuted them:
Listing of every allegation made by Berg and showing there is no evidence behind each one:
One (http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/2008/09/was-obama-born.html)
Two (http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/2008/09/was-obama-bor-1.html)
Another site going through Berg's claims and showing how they are false:
Source (http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/10/someone_is_lyin.html)
Here are the main points of the lawsuit:
1.) Obama's birth certificate is fake
2.) Obama moved to Indonesia when he was young, which didn't recognize dual citizenship, so they claim that he had to renounce his United States citizenship.
3.) When he moved back to the United States he didn't go through any sort of re-naturalization process.
Specifically, point 1 is just flat out false. The document has been examined by multiple organizations including factcheck.org (Berg doesn't accept their investigation because he claims they are run by Annenberg of Chicago which Obama sits on the board of. Obama sat on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, factcheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. both receive funding from the Annenberg Foundation. Very tenuous conflict of interests): Source (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html.). Even World Net Daily isn't crazy enough to claim it to be fake: Source (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214)
On point 2, a minor cannot expatriate himself and neither can his parents. Source (http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/expatriation.htm)
With point 2 invalidated, point 3 is as well.
Now stop it.
Luscious is right. This lawsuit is a joke and Berg should be sanctioned under Rule 11 for bringing a frivolous suit in Federal Court. Berg is trying to flip the burden when it is HE who has the burden of proving his allegations.
bem401
10-25-2008, 01:46 PM
If the allegation is so frivolous though, why doesn't Obama just produce the original COLB and end all the nonsense? That's the only reason I give any credibility to the assertions of Berg.
miabella
10-25-2008, 02:16 PM
that's like you expecting girls on this site to provide evidence that ray gordon parker's lawsuit against them is frivolous.
it is much the same situation here.
Melonie
10-25-2008, 02:33 PM
well this bullet appears to have been successfully dodged ... Judge Surrick just ruled that, as a registered voter, Berg does not have sufficient 'standing' to bring such a lawsuit !
In point of fact, the Judge did not delve into the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of any of Berg's claims. Instead the Judge ruled that only the US Congress can confer 'standing' for individual parties to bring lawsuits regarding such constitutional issues ... with the implication being that with both houses of congress firmly in Democratic hands that no such 'standing' is ever likely to be conferred - thus no investigation of Obama's citizenship credentials is ever likely to take place.
(snip)"All in all, the judge wrote, it was the satisfaction of the injury-in-fact requirement which was the problem. Berg’s harm was simply too intangible.
…regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.
Berg, disappointed by the decision, plans to appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court.
“This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution,” Berg said. “If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States–the most powerful man in the entire world–is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?”"(snip)
At any rate, regardless of Berg's option of filing appeals in higher courts, it would appear that if any negative consequences were to eventually materialize from this issue will only happen well after the presidential election. Given that the Third Circuit court has a history of handing down fairly 'liberal' decisions, and given that Obama will have been inaugurated as president well before this issue could ever 'percolate' through to the Supreme Court, odds are this is the last that will be heard of this issue in terms of becoming a serious challenge to an Obama presidency. From a pragmatic standpoint, it is extremely doubtful that the US Supreme Court judges would ever rule in a manner that would result in the removal from office of a 'sitting' president !!!
~
Melonie
10-25-2008, 08:09 PM
well, it would appear that Berg has done his homework in expectation of an unfavorable ruling ...
(snip)"Philip J. Berg is Appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court as Obama is "NOT" qualified to be President of the United States Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court
For Immediate Release: - 10/25/08 - Contact Info at end.
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/25/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.
Berg said, "I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick's decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?
So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned.
According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution."(snip)
the question of timing now becomes a critical issue i.e. will the US Supreme Court agree to hear this case prior to the election ? ... prior to an Obama inauguration ?
LizardQueen
10-25-2008, 08:59 PM
Disqualifying Obama: yer doin it wrong
evan_essence
10-29-2008, 09:28 PM
Oh, I'm definitely serious. The reasoning is very straightforward too. ..[snip].. Thus I believe that the only way that Americans can truly evaluate the consequences of democratic initiaitives is to allow them four years worth of 'free rein' in Washington to enact such initiatives, but at the same time take away the opportunity to (falsely) shift 'blame' anywhere but on their own collective heads.Yeah, hon, I understand that, but you didn't answer my question. Since it's in your best interest for Obama to win, why are you distributing information that might cost him votes?
-Ev
Ms. Mia Roberts
10-29-2008, 09:50 PM
Yeah, hon, I understand that, but you didn't answer my question. Since it's in your best interest for Obama to win, why are you distributing information that might cost him votes?
-Ev
cause she watches fox news lol........
Melonie
10-30-2008, 02:09 PM
Since it's in your best interest for Obama to win, why are you distributing information that might cost him votes?
mostly to enable those SW readers who aren't drinking CNBC KoolAid to prepare themselves for the likely impact of an Obama presidency + supermajorities in the US congress.
...and the beat goes on.
A similar article was published in the Dayton Daily News.
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20081030/NEWS0106/310300037/1055/NEWS
I'm dubious about the claims and don't have the skills to detect if the document as published on his site has been forged or tampered with. The only thing that bothers me is that it looks like a document that was produced yesterday...I mean...with the computer fonts and all that. I was born in the early '50s. I have my birth certificate. It was typed on a typewriter, not a computer. Not sure what the norm was in 1961.
Anyone here born in that era?
FBR
Ms. Mia Roberts
10-30-2008, 07:02 PM
mostly to enable those SW readers who aren't drinking CNBC KoolAid to prepare themselves for the likely impact of an Obama presidency + supermajorities in the US congress.
i read, i listen and i watch msnbc, cnn, AND fox news...
fox news is racist, bias bullshit. Its fuckin ridiculous and anyone who follows that news is RETARDED!
i will admit that msnbc is very left wing and is sometimes too bias. But they are much more fair and respectful when it comes to the issues.
Cnn is by far the most fair and balanced.
I watch all of them so i can make my own judgements.
jester214
10-30-2008, 07:09 PM
i read, i listen and i watch msnbc, cnn, AND fox news...
fox news is racist, bias bullshit. Its fuckin ridiculous and anyone who follows that news is RETARDED!
i will admit that msnbc is very left wing and is sometimes too bias. But they are much more fair and respectful when it comes to the issues.
Cnn is by far the most fair and balanced.
I watch all of them so i can make my own judgements.
No, FOX is not racist (when you say something like that YOU sound ignorant) or bullshit. Yes, they are extremely bias. But they make it clear, they admit there a news stations that is right leaning.
MSNBC on the other hand, denies being anything other than totally fair. They claim to report everything as fairly and accurately as possible. What they do is much worse than what FOX does.
CNN is all over the board, this election they've leaned left, last election they leaned right. They lean right on the War. But I do agree, they are better than the other two, and the only one I can stomach reading/listening too.
LizardQueen
10-30-2008, 07:40 PM
BTW, something is biased, but has bias
threlayer
10-30-2008, 09:03 PM
It very well could have been produced yesterday. It definitely was produced within the last seven years. In the bottom left corner is a form number "OHSM 1.1 (Rev. 11/01) LASER".
This does not mean it's a forgery. All it means is it's not an original.
I had an original birth certificate which, like yours, looked like it was typed up on an old manual Royal typewriter. It was lost and I needed to get it replaced. The replacement is a spiffy new laser printed version on a 4/2001 form. It's genuine and accurate.
I didn't see it. Maybe it was scanned and reprinted by a laserprinter. Wonder if any state saves them on microfiche for archiving?
Melonie
11-25-2008, 09:28 AM
just when you thought that it was safe to forget about this little issue ...
Yes, that's correct. The Donofrio lawsuit against the New Jersey Secretary of State - requesting proof of Barack Obama's qualification to be President i.e. 'natural born citizen' status - has been scheduled for a US Supreme Court conference on December 5th.
(snip)"There has been much confusion regarding Barack Obama’s eligibility and the aspect of Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit that sets it apart is his claim that Obama does not meet the constitutional definition of Natural Born Citizen. Here is an explanation from Leo Donofrio:
“Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.
The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that’s why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not “natural born Citizens”.
Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; That’s it right there. (Emphasis added.)
The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn’t want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.
The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as “natural born Citizens”, so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.
But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.
The Framers distinguished between “natural born Citizens” and all other “Citizens”. And that’s why it’s important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of “Citizen”, not “natural born Citizen”. The Framers were Citizens, but they weren’t natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document. Since the the Framers didn’t consider themselves to have been “natural born Citizens” due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.
Brack Obama’s official web site, Fight The Smears, admits he was a British Citizen at birth. At the very bottom of the section of his web site that shows an alleged official Certification Of Live Birth, the web site lists the following information and link thereto:
FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
That is a direct admission Barack Obama was a British citizen “at birth”.
My law suit argues that since Obama had dual citizenship “at birth” and therefore split loyalties “at birth”, he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States. A “natural born citizen” would have no other jurisdiction over him “at birth” other than that of the United States. The Framers chose the words “natural born” and those words cannot be ignored. The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, “natural born citizen”, pertains to the status of the person’s citizenship “at birth”."(snip)
from
glambman
11-25-2008, 09:49 AM
The US does not recognize dual citizenship. If you are dual american and something else, they don't care about the something else, they classify you as an american. nObama's mom was a full us citizen. As much as I think he is a full of shit socialist politician, this is grasping at straws.
I was born in a foreign (European) country. My dad was a full blooded american who was stationed overseas, my mom was from S America. Upon birth, they did renounce my ciaim to any citizenship of that country.
Just because nObama's parents didn't renounce the british citizenship, doesn't mean his american citizenship is renounced .
Melonie
11-25-2008, 09:57 AM
^^^ agreed. However, the situation between Barack Obama and yourself is different. Your father was a US citizen over the age of 18, and you were born under US jurisdiction (i.e. a US military base albeit on foreign soil). Barack Obama's father was a British citizen, his mother was a US citizen (however one that was NOT over the age of 18 at the time of his birth), and under treaties his citizenship was governed by the jurisdiction of the UK Nationality Act of 1948 regardless of Barack's actual place of birth.
Undoubtedly, today Barack Obama is a US citizen, but that is not the question ... with the question being that 'natural born citizenship' is required to be eligible for the office of President ( much to the chagrin of Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is also a US citizen but not a 'natural born citizen' ). At any rate, the Supreme Court will have the chance to settle this issue once and for all in a couple of weeks.
Lucy in the Sky
11-25-2008, 10:04 AM
No, FOX is not racist (when you say something like that YOU sound ignorant) or bullshit.
That would be a matter of opinion.
glambman
11-25-2008, 10:08 AM
Nope. My parents met in Europe (both were working there). I was born in a local hospital, my father worked out of the Embassy, and there were not US bases there. When my mom first came to the US, they weren't going to let her in. She said you have too, my 3 children (that were with her) are US citizens. lol They relented. I don't know if they had done citizenship by marriage forms yet, but it could have been due to her native politics.
glambman
11-25-2008, 10:11 AM
No, FOX is not racist (when you say something like that YOU sound ignorant) or bullshit. Yes, they are extremely bias. But they make it clear, they admit there a news stations that is right leaning.
MSNBC on the other hand, denies being anything other than totally fair. They claim to report everything as fairly and accurately as possible. What they do is much worse than what FOX does.
CNN is all over the board, this election they've leaned left, last election they leaned right. They lean right on the War. But I do agree, they are better than the other two, and the only one I can stomach reading/listening too.
Fox is right leaning? They are the most objective (politically) news group out there. When a rightie speaks, so does a leftie. I watched Headlin Nes (CNN) the other day, and it was interjected with a woman spouting leftist commentary. At no time did they have a rightist commentator, nor even debate the issue.
They may seem far right, but only because the others are so far left.
Melonie
11-25-2008, 10:26 AM
She said you have too, my 3 children (that were with her) are US citizens. lol They relented.
well, based on the info you have provided, YOU aren't eligible to run for President because you are not a 'natural born' Citizen - unless there is some special rule applying to the children of US Embassy personnel based on all Embassies being considered to be the 'soil' of the Embassy country regardless of what country they happen to be located in (noting that neither Obama's mother or father had US diplomatic credentials).
~
glambman
11-25-2008, 10:42 AM
He was navy, just happened to be stationed at the Embassy.
Naturalization Act of 1790 "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."
You're making me look bad, people are going to get the impression that I actually support nObama. As if. ;)
Melonie
11-25-2008, 10:58 AM
^^^ and that is true if BOTH parents were citizens of the United States. Current law states that if only one parent is a US citizen, that certain age / physical residency requirements within the USA apply to the US citizen parent in order to automatically 'transfer' US citizenship.
For the record, I seriously doubt whether this 'natural born citizen' issue will gain much traction. However, the Supreme Court is definitely going to take a look at the Donofrio case. I'm certainly no expert, but it would seem that the only joker in the deck may be Obama's Hawaiian 'Certification of Live Birth' ... which is not the same as a 'Hawaiian Birth Certificate'. In theory, Obama's mother could have registered Obama's 'Certification of Live Birth' in Hawaii even if he was previously born in Kenya. The pertinent info regarding the hospital / doctor etc. has not been made public by Obama. The difference of course is that the child of a 'foreign' father and a US mother ... but a US mother who does not meet the age / physical residency requirements for automatic 'transfer' of US citizenship ... would have lots of problems with US immigration had he actually been born in Kenya.
~
glambman
11-25-2008, 11:15 AM
IIRC the residency requirement is if they were born outside of the US. Wasn't nObama born in Hawaii? A few years after it became a state? Is there proof of the renouncing of his US citizenship?
Melonie
11-25-2008, 11:40 AM
^^^ well this is a point raised by different lawsuits ... that it's possible for a Hawaiian mother to obtain a Hawaiian 'Certificate of Live Birth' without having to actually give birth to the child in Hawaii !!!
glambman
11-25-2008, 03:32 PM
^^^ well this is a point raised by different lawsuits ... that it's possible for a Hawaiian mother to obtain a Hawaiian 'Certificate of Live Birth' without having to actually give birth to the child in Hawaii !!!
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=XqOLREmCJOo
You see, these are pull something up and hope it floats.
On the Hawaiin CoLB, is that Hawaiian or Hawaiian? Native Hawaiians can get away with more. Also, his mom didn't even move to Hawaii until 1960. I doubt she would have known about 'local ways' in a year.
An Ambassador saying something he didn't witness is also laughable. There are many countries, cities, states that adopt a 'native son'. Look at the tourism market they stand to gain.
glambman
11-25-2008, 05:50 PM
Geez, I don't even like the guy, and here I am defending him. Go figure...........
Where is the pudding.
By all accounts, his mother moved away from Seattle area after she graduated. She went to Hawaii for college. In the first semester, she got preggers (Novemberish). Married a 3 months preggers, then nObama came out in August.
If that is accurate, she would have been 17 y/o when she got preggers, which is lsss than a month before her 18th b/d.
Yes, he was married, so the marriage may not have been legal or recognized by the US. So, his nationality doesn't matter then, right? His mother was 18 when he was born, as well as a native american who resided in the US for (what seems like) all of her life (to that point).
That would mean he is native american, regardless of where he was born at.
What am I missing?
Melonie
11-26-2008, 01:34 AM
^^^ what you are missing are the age requirements in US law regarding the transfer of US citizenship when only one parent is a US citizen. From one of the other lawsuit discussions ...
(snip)US Law very clearly stipulates: “…If only one parent was a U.S. Citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.” Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen and Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawai’i being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama’s birth, but *after* age 16. It doesn’t matter *after* . In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. Citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama’s birth when she was 18 in Hawai’i. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama’s birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen. "(snip)
Miss_Luscious
11-26-2008, 07:53 AM
Melonie stop copy/pasting form FW:FW:FW emails. What you posted isn't correct.
Those qualifictions are only for people who were NOT born in the US (see http://immigration.findlaw.com/immigration/immigration-citizenship-naturalization/immigration-citizenship-naturalization-did-you-know(1).html)
This explains how to handle citizenship for people who were not born in the US but one or both parents were citizens.
I had my daughter at 17 and her father was from Trinidad. He did not have citizenship in the US but my daughter is still a natural born citizen.
You're just wrong wrong wrong.
glambman
11-26-2008, 08:51 AM
^^^ what you are missing are the age requirements in US law regarding the transfer of US citizenship when only one parent is a US citizen. From one of the other lawsuit discussions ...
(snip)US Law very clearly stipulates: “…If only one parent was a U.S. Citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.” Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen and Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawai’i being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama’s birth, but *after* age 16. It doesn’t matter *after* . In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. Citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama’s birth when she was 18 in Hawai’i. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama’s birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen. "(snip)
Yes, but this is the same thing Dummy Democrats tried to do with the chad thing in Florida when Al Gore lost the election. They took a sentence concerning another style of voting (written vs chad) and tried to apply it to the chad system. Wrong. What you are applying is if the parent was not a native born, but naturalized. There are different types of 'citizenship', and some rules don't apply to each. Just like I was an natural born American at birth. The US Embassy even gave me my birth certificate.