Questions of Birth Still Hang Over Obama
In the wake of the General Election on Tuesday last, there is little question that in spite of allegations of voter fraud in Ohio and Indiana, Barack Obama fairly won the election in the constitutional sense. However, the latest problem involving Obama's background is his apparent inability to produce an authentic vault copy of his birth certificate with the raised and embossed seal of the sovereign State of Hawaii thereon:What are the requirements to become president? Section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution states that a president must:
- be a natural born citizen of the United States;
- be at least 35 years old;
- have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years.
The inevitable constitutional crisis regarding Obama, of course, revolves around his inability (or unwillingness) to produce an authentic Hawaiian birth certificate with the raised certificate stamp that the Federal Elections Commission can independently verify.
I know there are those who say Obama has produced an authentic birth certificate and posted it on his website, but experts and amateurs alike quickly found numerous errors in that document and deemed it a forgery (and a bad one at that).
Philip J. Berg, a Democratic operative and former deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, has assumed the tragic role of Prometheus, ascended Mount Olympus, the abode of Zeus, and has launched a one-man campaign to force Obama to verify his U.S. citizenship by suing the senator, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission, to verify that indeed he is worthy to be President of the United States by producing a real birth certificate.
Here are some of the unanswered issues hanging over the head of President-elect Barack Obama and the question of his American citizenship cited in an earlier article by WND news editor Drew Zahn:
- The allegation that Obama was born in Kenya to parents unable to automatically grant him American citizenship;
- The allegation that Obama was made a citizen of Indonesia as a child and that he retained foreign citizenship into adulthood without recording an oath of allegiance to regain any theoretical American citizenship;
- The allegation that Obama's birth certificate was a forgery and that he may not be an eligible, natural-born citizen;
- The allegation that Obama was not born an American citizen; lost any hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child; that Obama may not now be an American citizen and even if he is, may hold dual citizenships with other countries. If any, much less all, of these allegations are true, the suit claims, Obama cannot constitutionally serve as president.
- The allegations that "Obama's grandmother on his father's side, half brother and half sister claim Obama was born in Kenya," the suit states."Reports reflect Obama's mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight. Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama's birth."
- The claim could not be verified by WND inquiries to Hawaiian hospitals, since state law bars the hospitals from releasing medical records to the public.
I am somewhat hopeful that Berg will successfully appeal Surrick's outrageous decision to 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court if necessary, even if technically he doesn't have standing to hold Obama accountable to the Constitution. Why? Because this is America, and out of 300 million people, someone should give a damn enough about this republic to make sure the person who holds the highest elected office in the land holds it legitimately based on the black letter text of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
For those not aware, Philip J. Berg, the man who brought the suit Berg v. Obama, and Berg is not a Republican operative, but a life-long Democrat and prominent Pennsylvania party man. An injunction request on the part of Berg to halt the General Election last Tuesday was denied by U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter. However, in denying Berg's request, Souter also ordered the now-President-Elect to respond to the Writ of Certiorari by December 1st:
Berg said he was told by a clerk for Souter that his application for an injunction to stay the election was denied. But he also said the defendants "are required to respond to the Writ of Certiorari" by Dec. 1.
Legally translated, that means that Barack Obama has until December 1st to produce the authentic copy of his birth certificate, not a facimile from a website which cannot be authentically verified. If he cannot do this, it may force the Court to take up the question of Obama's citizenship.
My money is on Obama ignoring the High Court and hoping the Court will in turn ignore the issue in the name of keeping the peace-something they may in fact do. If the Court does not ignore the matter, however, we have a massive problem on our hands.
The Constitution has for too long been ignored by public figures in both parties in the name of expediency, and this could be a case where our national charter is thrown to the wind by an incoming President before he even swears the oath to support and defend that document. The Court should not ignore the Constitution's clear provisions on the qualifications of a President, it has a duty to enforce them regardless of political consideration or concern over public disorder.
Unlike some conservatives, I do not wish for the President-Elect to be dislodged from office on account of discrepancies over his birthplace. He has won a national election of historic import, and if now we learn that he cannot prove his natural-born status and that, as a result, he cannot be allowed to be sworn in as President, this country may begin a period where there is no social peace for many years to come. The Constitution cannot and should not be ignored in the name of order-we've already seen the present administration do that, and the country is worse off for it.
Barack Obama can end this speculation and prevent a pall of illegitimacy from hanging over his administration by producing the true and correct copy of his birth certificate for the world and the Supreme Court to see. I urge the President-Elect, not as a Republican, but as an American to end this speculation by producing his authentic birth certificate and presenting that document to the world in a press conference. In doing so, President-Elect Obama can not only maintain legitimacy, but he may help keep the peace as well.
Labels: Federal Courts, Federal politics
posted by Deacon David Oatney @ 2:01 PM
7 Comments:
Dave,
Do you do any fact checking before putting stuff like this up?
STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i.”
###
For more information, contact:
Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Phone: (808) 586-4442
Link to original Press Release from Hawaii Department of Health
David,
I know the election is over and your guy lost and that there is a griving process you must go thru but the bong is not the answer!!
Put the BONG D-O-W-N! Put it down while you still can! It is not the answer!
This is the answer:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
David, this question has been answered so many times that it's bording on madness - madness that seems to have ensnared you as well.
Yes, Berg is a democrat, but he is also a RAGING LOONEY TUNE!!
David, wise up, this is a sorry, sad attempt by a nobody to be a somebody. That's all.
SteveMule
ROFL! You are effin tarded for posting this story!
Pictures of raised seal and authenticated birth certificate (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html)
A simple google search would have tipped you off. Do you want more proof? Will you retract this lame and late attempt to shift focus from the ills of your party or are you too much of a coward to admit it?
Obediah
Most reputable conservative blogs have buried this story six feet under where it belongs. Which is where we need to put the concept of "compassionate conservatism" as well.
Don't you think you should do the same? You're not helping the conservative cause any by posting this drivel.
Obama won, McCain lost. It's time for the Republicans to begin rebuilding the party from the ashes of two consecutive ass kickings we've received.
Re: Legally translated, that means that Barack Obama has until December 1st to produce the authentic copy of his birth certificate, not a facimile from a website which cannot be authentically verified.
No. It is not true that Obama must provide a birth certificate to Justice Souter. Only Berg has said that, and he must have his facts mixed up. Why? Because the Supreme Court is not a court that hears evidence. It never has. It is only a court that looks at the law, and constitutional issues. In this case the only issue is whether Berg has standing to bring this case. If Berg wins that, the SC sends the case back to a lower court to hear the evidence.
And Berg could lose at a lower court too.
Here is what one critic of Obama says about Berg.
This document is apparently from Andy Martin, another critic of Obama, who points out some of Berg’s failings.
You can find it at:
http://actionsbyt.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/andy-martin/
ANDY MARTIN
Monday, November 10, 2008
The strange behavior of Philadelphia lawyer Philip J. Berg
Why would a Philadelphia lawyer file frivolous claims in federal courts about Barack Obama? Is it possible the lawyer is trying to divert attention from serious questions that exist about Obama’s birth certificate and troubled and confusing family history?
Andy Martin speculates on the bizarre litigation behavior of Philadelphia lawyer Philip J. Berg
ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/
“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
PHILADELPHIA LAWYER PHILIP J. BERG SAYS HE IS AN OPPONENT OF BARACK OBAMA; IS HE?
BERG’S PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS MOTIVES AND COMPETENCE.
(NEW YORK)(November 11, 2008) Some time in mid-August I began to get phone calls from a lawyer’s office in Philadelphia. The lawyer was Philip J. Berg.
I eventually spoke with Mr. Berg. He explained that he was preparing to file a lawsuit against Barack Obama and a number of other parties. Berg asked if I would review the case before it was filed, and I agreed.
I carefully read Berg’s initial complaint. (Some of the confirming e-mails are in the hands of Patriot Brigade Talk Radio Network.) I advised Berg’s office that his lawsuit would not fly in federal court. His joinder of the Federal Election Commission was utter nonsense. Naming the Democratic Party was questionable. Seeking to enjoin the Party’s convention was silliness. For an ordinary voter to sue Obama was a lost cause; I explained that already this year two judges had ruled individuals lacked legal standing to file such a claim. Berg sent me a revised version of his lawsuit that was equally deficient.
Berg has tried to pretend that his lack of “standing” is a technicality. On the contrary, in federal courts standing is a threshold jurisdictional issue. State courts have broad “general” jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. I explained to Berg how he could file a meritorious lawsuit in state court but he was frantic. “I want to file before the Democratic Convention so I can apply for an injunction,” he said. At that point I decided Berg was a loon and had no further contact.
Mr. Berg did file his loony case, and it began to attract a lot of attention. My initial reaction was sadness at the gullibility of the public. People obviously had no idea that the form and forum of Berg’s lawsuit were totally deficient.
I did not become concerned until a New York radio talk show host who is a friend called me and said “Andy, what about the order for Obama to produce his birth certificate?” I explained to my friend that there was no such order. Berg and his supporters were spreading disinformation or allowing it to be disseminated.
I began receiving more calls and e-mails about Berg’s lawsuit. Berg was escalating the idiocy of his behavior to attract frustrated voters. “Obama admitted he was born in Kenya,” screamed one Berg release. Obama had admitted nothing of the sort. The more irresponsible Berg became, the more e-mail he generated from desperate voters.
Berg’s lawsuit was promptly dismissed, as I had anticipated before it was even filed. Berg was ready with an explanation: there was a conspiracy to deprive him of justice. No such conspiracy existed.
Last month my staff and I discussed whether we should do a column about Berg’s harmful behavior. We decided to ignore him and hope he would go away. Mr. Berg is not going away. He keeps manufacturing false claims to stay in the news and to keep soliciting money.
After Berg lost in the district court, he filed an appeal to the U. S. Court of Appeals. But there was no “juice” in a mere appeal. Berg was soon asking the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the national election—on the basis of his crackpot lawsuit. Once again Berg was denied relief. And once again Berg was ready with a new round of disinformation.
I started to get e-mails telling me the Supreme Court had ordered Obama to produce a birth certificate. No such order existed. The Rules of the Supreme Court allow thirty days to respond; Berg converted that into an “order” from the Court compelling his opponents to respond. Sheer disinformation. There was no “order.”
The false claims about the Supreme Court are what convinced me to reverse my earlier view and write a column questioning Berg’s behavior.
Enough, Mr. Berg.
What’s next from him? What ridiculous claim will he concoct to continue attracting attention?
During this entire period of idiotic behavior Berg was going on talk radio and soliciting funds for his doomed mission.
What should all of this teach us? I have several thoughts for the reader to consider.
First, no one is more opposed to Barack Obama and his hard left warriors than I am. Obama’s minions were not attacking Berg during the campaign; they were attacking me. I was the first one to focus attention on Obama’s evasiveness and deception, four years ago. But while I have attacked Obama, I have also worked hard to anchor all of my claims in evidence, interviews and traditional forms of legal research. That’s what really scares Obama.
When I asked Berg in August how he was going to prove Obama was born in Kenya, he said “I saw it on the Internet.” Not good enough for a federal judge.
Second, Berg likes to identify himself as a “supporter” of Hillary Clinton. That’s garbage. He’s smearing Clinton. Clinton must cringe every time Berg does some new stunt and misuses her name. Berg has no connection with Clinton. More misuse.
Third, is Berg’s motive to collect money from frustrated voters? I don’t know. He does ask for cash, so that may be the explanation. To be sure, my Committee also receives donations, but we have funded two trips to Hawai’i for Obama research and investigation, and a birth certificate lawsuit scheduled for a hearing on November 18th in Honolulu.
Fourth, could Berg be professionally incompetent? Berg has been criticized by judges: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1122023117263
http://systocracy.com/Bergmalpracticetwo
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0679P.pdf
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05d0521p.pdf
Finally, is Berg really an Obama operative? Berg’s behavior is so far outside the normal confines of legal practice that his conduct is aberrant as well as abhorrent. To date, only Obama has benefited from Berg’s misbehavior. When an Obama opponent acts crazy, Obama’s people say “See.”
There are very legitimate questions about Obama’s birth certificate and family history. By filing frivolous cases (a case filed in the wrong court seeking the wrong relief against the wrong defendants is frivolous) and misusing legitimate issues, Berg obscures the seriousness of the underlying questions about Obama’s past. And, inevitably, journalists link Berg and others (such as myself) together, despite the fact that we have absolutely no connection. I, for one, do not enjoy being joined to Berg in any form, even a news story. http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=20193200&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8
Likewise, Berg’s use of Clinton’s name benefits Obama by discrediting Clinton as a possible behind-the-scenes Berg supporter, when nothing could be further from the truth. Dirty tricks? Obama and Axelrod are masters of smears by association and deception. Although I am not an enthusiastic believer of the Berg-for-Obama explanation for Berg’s behavior, it still makes a lot of sense.
Certainly no competent attorney who regularly practices in federal court would engage in Berg’s hijinks. At some point Berg could face sanctions for his misconduct and abusive behavior.
So we are left with no clear explanation for why Berg is acting out: (1) is he “crazy” or ill? (2) is he an Obama saboteur? (3) is he a financial flim flam artist using false claims to collect money? (4) is he an incompetent attorney? I can’t say for sure which of those apply. I leave it to the good reader’s common sense to reflect on Berg’s behavior and to decide for him or herself just what Berg’s motivation is.
Helping the anti-Obama movement is not Berg’s mission. Quite the opposite. Berg has helped Obama by discrediting Obama’s opponents. So what is Berg’s game? Let me know what you think.
end quote
A posting from Andrew Walden, publisher of the Hawaii Free Press, a right-wing blog based in Hawaii.
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/92/Barack-Obama-Born-in-Hawaii.aspx
Barack Obama: Born in Hawai`i
by Andrew Walden
|
It is time to focus on REAL issues, not imaginary ones.
A fairly impressive internet industry has sprung up claiming that Obama was born in either Kenya or Indonesia. This is nonsense, which distracts from the broadly unexplored story of Obama's upbringing. This kind of nonsense has emerged because the McCain campaign chose not to raise the many questions about Barack Obama's numerous hard-left alliances. Barack Obama was born in Hawai`i, August 4, 1961 at Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu.
Obama's birth certificate posted online is exactly the same birth certificate everybody in Hawai`i gets from the State Department of Health. It is not forged. There is nothing unusual about the design or the texture. In addition to the birth certificate, the August 13, 1961 Honolulu Advertiser also carries an announcement of Obama's birth. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin also carries the same announcement. Both papers require submission of a copy of the birth certificate to print a birth announcement.
By refusing media requests for a look at the actual paper birth certificate, Obama's campaign gave sly backhanded assistance to the forgery hype. The internet release of the birth certificate via hyper-partisan website Daily Kos on June 12 before posting it on a campaign website was likely calculated to fuel the frenzy. This is Obama's Gramscian strategy designed to redirect the opposition down a blind alley. It was so successful that Hawai`i government offices found themselves inundated with telephone calls from mainland voters in the days before the November 4 election.
Since Hawai`i law forbids the release of birth certificates to anybody not authorized by Barack Obama or his family, Obama further fed the paranoia by choosing not to grant such permissions. A World Net Daily story claiming Hawai`i's Republican Governor Linda Lingle "sealed" the birth certificate is totally false. The governor's office has asked for a retraction. The forgery story was also boosted by video claims that Obama's Kenyan grandmother stated that Obama "is a son of this village" — a phrase which can have many different meanings.
For Obama to have been born in Kenya, Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. would have had to fly from Honolulu to Mombasa, give birth in a substandard third world hospital, fly back and then somehow arrange for a fraudulent birth certificate to be entered by the State of Hawai`i on August 8, 1961 (at the time governed by Republican William Quinn). They would have also somehow planted the phony birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser (at the time edited by Republican Thurston Twigg-Smith) and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Hawai`i's current Republican Governor Linda Lingle would also have to be complicit in the cover-up as would all of the leftist 1960s University of Hawaii friends of Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr – among them US Rep. Neil Abercrombie.
In 1961, the roundtrip flight to Kenya would have been a very expensive, pointless, and time consuming epic journey for two starving students. Barack Obama Sr. had only been able to come study at UH Manoa with a free ticket on a donated charter flight with other Kenyan students. B
Obama benefited from creating an opposition which seemed to be standing by the side of the road impotently pointing to a piece of paper as if it could stop 63 million voters from anointing their "chosen one." Birth certificate lawsuit plaintiff Phil Berg is a Democrat and whether he understands it or not, he has done great work on behalf of his party.
It is time for folks to stop being played by the Obama campaign and drop this counterproductive "phony birth certificate" nonsense. Obama opponents can find plenty of real material by focusing on the hard-left alliances, stated positions, personnel appointments and policy actions of the Obama administration and of the Democrat-controlled Congress.
Cool post as for me. I'd like to read more concerning that theme.
By the way look at the design I've made myself A level escort
Post a Comment
<< Home