Obama's Birth Certificate

[earl]

A little trivia on Berg for ya, Nick. earl
Anti-Obama attorney Philip J. Berg faces disciplinary complaint

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Do you have reason to believe that President Elect Obama can be expected to act in the interests of a country other than the USA?

It isn't for me to judge. But all these characters he has been involved with doesn't classify him as saint of the year. You are like the rest of the choir concerning Obama that only respects the law when it satisfies his aims.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

A little trivia on Berg for ya, Nick. earl
Anti-Obama attorney Philip J. Berg faces disciplinary complaint

Sheesh, Andy Martin will do anything to get his name in the papers. Anyone can sue anyone.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

It isn't for me to judge.

Ok, so you don't really have any reason to suspect Obama of having an agenda or of having potential to act in the interests of a country other than the USA. Is that right?

At this juncture, would it be fair to say that there is no probable cause for action? Likewise, would it be fair to say that your ongoing efforts to create hysteria by suggesting that governmental powers and responsibilities will somehow be compromised by one President Elect Obama have no basis in fact?

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Anyone can sue anyone.

Eaxctly, even Philip Berg can file a suit, as can his copy cats. When a law suit is filed, all it means is that someone has paid their filing fee. It has no legal significance. And that is why you have been a vehicle for a travesty masquerading as legal process. It's called the Right Wing Road Show.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Ok, so you don't really have any reason to suspect Obama of having an agenda or of having potential to act in the interests of a country other than the USA. Is that right?

At this juncture, would it be fair to say that there is no probable cause for action? Likewise, would it be fair to say that your ongoing efforts to create hysteria by suggesting that governmental powers and responsibilities will somehow be compromised by one President Elect Obama have no basis in fact?

Defending constitutional requirements is not probable cause for you but it is for me.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Defending constitutional requirements is not probable cause for you but it is for me.

Constitutional requirements, laws or rules arise from an ongoing effort to safeguard human interests in the context of changing circumstances. To ignore their origins and intended purpose is to ignore the importance of applicability.

Laws have no intrinsic merit and they have no absolute value. They do not demand blind assent and indiscriminate application. There are many possible applications of laws and rules that are absurd and defeat their original intent. This explains amendments.

To further clarify the issue of applicability: things that are illegal in the US are acceptable and encouraged in other countries. In addition to the problem of cultural relativism, there is the issue of how societies use law. The Nazis saw law as subordinate to their idea of order and national self interest. Their ideas on legal perfectability ignored a guiding principle for law, namely, to ensure the rights of individuals and protect individuals from encroachment in the form of mob rule, politicians who abuse their powers, steal elections, enrich war profiteers, enable financial bailout scam artists, etc.

Your implicit thinking that legal guidelines have absolute value has blinded you to the Enlightenment idea concerning individual liberties that is articulated in the US Constitution. Arguably, you would have much more credibility if you were to argue that the liberties of the American people have been substantially compromised over the past 8 years than you have by continuing your efforts to convince others in the absence of any credible evidence that President Elect Obama can be expected to damage Americans' interests. However, your priorities are clearly not with a uniform application of principle. Nor do you seem interested in applying Constitutional principle to the real world. Instead, you try to build a case on hypotheticals. There is no case.

I see no value to what you are doing with this thread except as smear and second-rate propaganda made to look like legal process. You can dress it up as Constitutionalism, but I'm not buying it.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

I am simply demanding proof because of all these inconsistencies. Anyone respecting the constitution will demand resolution to all these doubts. No doctor signature and no hospital admitting McCain was born there. Yet you swallow it whole. Talk about blind faith!

Can you answer why you would believe McCain's Birth Certificate?

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Please provide the seven primary reasons Obama shouldn't release the long form of his BC.

The primary reason, of course, is that he doesn't have it. If you, or anyone, request a record of your birth from whichever state's bureau of vital records, they will issue you a Certificate that your birth records are on file. BY THE CONSTITUTION, which you pretend to be concerned about, every governmental official is required to give "full faith and credit" to such certifications. In the case of every other American citizen throughout history, birth certificates have been accepted. In this case, you demand that the original records be pulled out of the vault; this is not done simply on request, but only on showing of extraordinary cause. You therefore need to sue in Hawaii, accusing the Hawaiian officials of perjury, and showing your evidence, if you have any.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Sheesh, Andy Martin will do anything to get his name in the papers.

I don't know who this Martin fellow is, but why don't you address the substance of what he says, rather than ad hominem attack the messenger?
"Philip J. Berg contacted me in mid-August about a complaint he proposed to file in federal court. He sent me the complaint to review, and I advised him the complaint was nonsense. He was suing the wrong parties in the wrong court for the wrong relief. [haven't I been pointing this out to you for months?] Berg said he wanted to "enjoin the Democratic National Convention," which caused me to question his sanity. He pleaded that Barack Obama was "born in Kenya" when there is not a shred of credible evidence to support this claim. [where, exactly, is your "evidence"?]

He filed his complaint and then began issuing a series of asinine news releases about the progress of his lawsuit.

Berg is playing on the vulnerability of people who intensely dislike President-elect Barack Obama, and using his inflated accusations to solicit money from the public. He constantly exaggerates or misrepresents the facts. [shouldn't a serial liar be distrusted, after you have seen his falsehoods over and over?] In early September persons acting on his behalf claimed there was a "court order" for Obama to produce a [COLOR=#0000cc! important][COLOR=#0000cc! important]birth [COLOR=#0000cc! important]certificate[/color][/color][/color]. No such order existed. [your opening post was a repetition of this lie, and yet, even after it was made plain to you this was a falsehood, you were unfazed]

Then he claimed Obama was in "default" and had "admitted" he was born in Kenya. This was compete nonsense. As someone who is a genuine critic of Mr. Obama, I know firsthand what confusion Berg creates with his false and misleading claims. Most recently he or persons acting in concert with him have suggested that the U.S. Supreme Court "ordered" a response to his nonsense. [did you fall for that one too?] The Court has done nothing of the sort. The court's rules simply provide a thirty-day period for responses.

I don't know whether Berg suffers from an emotional disturbance, or is merely a money-grubbing huckster, or what, but Berg's behavior is undermining public faith in the integrity of the Pennsylvania legal profession.

Berg has been disciplined in the past for misconduct [did you read the malpractice citations?]"

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by bob x

I don't know whether Berg suffers from an emotional disturbance, or is merely a money-grubbing huckster, or what...

The We the People Foundation is also accepting contributions. They have a Paypall account. And they have a dedicated WTP on-line system: "Please consider making either a generous one-time donation or a recurring monthly donation using our secure WTP on-line system. Be sure to select the We The People Foundation option."

Now's the time to support the cause, Nick!

[Nick_A]

I find this utterly fascinating and once again how far ahead of her time Simone Weil was:

"Equality is the public recognition, effectively expressed in institutions and manners, of the principle that an equal degree of attention is due to the needs of all human beings." Simone Weil

The liberal secular mind is like the mind of the Pharisees in the Bible. They only value appearance. They like to speak in platitudes about equality, fairness, tolerance, and whatever else but are the first do the opposite.

The constitution is either equal for all or just something people fight over and manipulate for power. If Obama has separate rules then there is no more regard for the equality the constitution is designed to protect but just an exchange of power plays. It is a shame since it is an extraordinary work but now as modern people, we fight for advantage and could never take seriously what Simone brings. It is a shame but life goes on. Now we must manipulate the constitution for our shallow purposes rather then defend its depth for the benefit of all. Keep coming with the Interfaith platitudes. We need a good laugh.

[earl]

Nick if anyone is attempting to "manipulate the constitution for shallow purposes," it's those holding out hope that they and their conservative secularist buddies can find a birth certificate loophole to invalidate an election. I'm sure Simone would have disapproved. earl

[Netti-Netti]

I feel the deepening economic crisis and rapidly declining quality of life on this planet tend to underscore how tediously self-indulgent this discussion has become since Philip Berg's law suit was dismissed by a judge whose respect for the Constition is not in question.

Deeply unsatisfying.

[Nick_A]

Earl, it isn't a matter of searching for loopholes. The point is that there is simply too much ambiguity to not suspect an intentional attempt to place ones belief in their self importance over the requirements of the constitution.

I like Jeff schreiber. He is an intelligent young family man who is not only a law student but takes time to write on court matters what he has first hand knowledge of. He writes.

America's Right

Furthermore, I just saw Wolf Blitzer on CNN do a three-minute segment on Donofrio's case. Of course, it was painted as you would expect it to be but, at this point, any focus on the constitutional aspects of this issue is good. The only thing, however, is that really I wish that the underlying motivation behind these legal actions would not necessarily be depicted as so much anti-Obama as pro-Constitution. I may be a conservative, I may firmly believe that Obama was certainly not the best choice for this country, but I would absolutely, positively be equally up in arms if it were a different politician, even a conservative.

You cannot appreciate people like this because they support the value of the principles on which the country was founded rather then continually trying to manipulate them in the naive belief that they know better. You simply are willing to sacrifice the constitution in support of Obama because regardless of if he is qualified, you believe his election is good for the country.

Obama and the DNC have spent a great deal of money preventing the resolution of the matter - the simple release of the long form of the BC. This means that the truth of it has been known for quite a while. It isn't a matter of a loophole but something that has been known and openly ignored to support selfish egoistic intentions.

Simone would have appreciated this as the normal functioning of the "Great Beast." The constitution is simply a means by which its worst manifestations are minimized and continually transformed. But Obama's stonewalling is simply an example of arrogant egoism at the expense of the constitution. it cannot get more basic. I support clearing up ambiguity in support of the importance of the constitution. You don't. It is that simple.

[earl]

Oh Nick, you expect me to buy your spiel that this is all simply about the constitution for you after all the blatant anti-Obama stuff you've posted outside of this thread? That's the conservative secular mindset for you-all about proclaiming their stance is about "principles and values" when their motivation is simple power politics. earl

PS, as I understand it, the case under consideration now by the US Supreme Court-the D'Onofrio one- is actually conceding Obama was born in Hawaii but is trying to get his election over-turned simply because 1 of his parents-dad-was a citizen of another nation. Goofy, no-chance-in-hell-of-flying legal argument; i.e., frivolous.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

If Obama has separate rules then there is no more regard for the equality the constitution is designed to protect but just an exchange of power plays.

Exactly. For every other American, displaying a birth certificate is accepted. Why not in this one particular case?

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

Oh Nick, you expect me to buy your spiel that this is all simply about the constitution for you after all the blatant anti-Obama stuff you've posted outside of this thread? That's the conservative secular mindset for you-all about proclaiming their stance is about "principles and values" when their motivation is simple power politics. earl

PS, as I understand it, the case under consideration now by the US Supreme Court-the D'Onofrio one- is actually conceding Obama was born in Hawaii but is trying to get his election over-turned simply because 1 of his parents-dad-was a citizen of another nation. Goofy, no-chance-in-hell-of-flying legal argument; i.e., frivolous.

Even if it were true that I was some sort of RW bigot, it wouldn't change the point that he and the DNC have hired three high priced lawyers to avoid showing respect to the constitution by revealing a BC anyone would be proud of. You just cannot understand people like Jeff and me that understand the necessity of equality as the ideal especially pertaining to the presidency. Equality for you is a nice PC word but when the chips are down it is secondary to your beliefs. Saying it and apparently living it are two diferent things for you. It is the way of the Beast and most live this way.

People don't understand why Jesus attacked the Pharisees because we have the Pharisee mindset in us and justify living by appearance. As such we don't see what we lose by it. I admit it so support the constitution and you prefer to look the other way.

Yes the D'Onofrio case is another matter but one thing at a time. I've been around long enough and experienced enough that no amount of feel good politically correct liberal BS will explain why Obama doesn't just release the BC and be done with it. As shocking as it may seem, there may be some intentional deception that would create sour notes in the choir.