Obama's Birth Certificate

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Hence the need for caution.

I'd be happy to explain my attitude for your interest.

You start the thread out by linking to a nonexistent web page, meaning you were passing on some information you can't vouch that you copied over from a secondary source. Apparently you didn't feel a need to go directly to the original. Nor did you check to see if your link was working (unless you were making a point of giving us a dead link for some reason).

You neglect to mention that you are passing on an internet rumour rather than a legitimate news story. You assert that a "federal judge (is) getting involved" and add that "the judge wants to rule quickly." In actual fact, the case has been active for 7 weeks and there is no evidence of any urgency as to current case disposition from the court's handling of it.

You develop your line of argument further by referring us to a right wing blog that features an unsigned and undated document along with some commentary to the effect that Obama has been slapped with a court order. You obviously didn't make any effort to sort out whether this is a false impression, nor did you acknowledge the possibility of a false impression when you cited the right wing blog. This lack of caution turns out to be very telling.

Based on the fact that your contentions have revolved around the birth certificate, you obviously hadn't read Philip Berg's suit even though you have us a Justia link (your post #19). If you had read Berg's suit, you'd know he doesn't think the birth certificate is the crux. He seems to feel there might be a case even if the certificate is authenticated.

The alleged effect moving to Indonesia on Obama's citizenship is mentioned several times in the NewsBusters article by P.J. Gladnick that you cite in your Post #14. You apparently hadn't read that either because you continued to go on and on about the importance of resolving the birth certificate issue. For example: "it just seems that the easy solution is to produce the frekin birth certificate." (Post #26)

You stated that the citizenship issue can and should be resolved now, thereby suggesting that the only reason it hasn't been resolved is because Obama has been stonewalling. This is a gross oversimplification and misses the distinct possibility that Mr. Berg will want to continue his law suit once the birth certificate has been authenticated. Your rendering of how this case is progressing is not grounded in what we know about Mr. Berg's law suit and appears to be another swipe at Obama.

Taken together, all this gives me the impression that you really weren't interested in the facts at all and were simply taken away with the opportunity to undermine Obama's stature, and kept hammering as though you feel you need to do your part in making sure the right wing propaganda machine will destroy Obama. I notice you spent the better part of the day yesterday on this thread, mostly just repeating yourself and not adding any new information.

Sure, but the American people have no sacred obligation to accept rumors as fact.

I would add that one way for a person to be principled is to start by taking responsibility for the quality of their communications. I would think that would include doing some very basic fact checks and not getting too carried away with misinformation when the opportunity presents itself.

As a general comment, the phoniness and hypocrisy of the right wing in the US is blatantly obvious when these people portray themselves as being a "force for good in the world" even as they lie and undermine the quality of existence. If you love your country, you will make a point not be part of that sickly culture of spin and distortion.

Netti

You start the thread out by linking to a nonexistent web page, meaning you were passing on some information you can't vouch that you copied over from a secondary source. Apparently you didn't feel a need to go directly to the original. Nor did you check to see if your link was working (unless you were making a point of giving us a dead link for some reason).

The link was active when I posted it.

You neglect to mention that you are passing on an internet rumour rather than a legitimate news story. You assert that a "federal judge (is) getting involved" and add that "the judge wants to rule quickly." In actual fact, the case has been active for 7 weeks and there is no evidence of any urgency as to current case disposition from the court's handling of it.

I can only pass along what I read. It is an interesting question. You call it a rumor and Berg's site calls it true. Who do I believe?

Obama Crimes

I received a phone call from Phil J. Berg a few minutes ago. He informed me that a rumor is circulating on the Internet that the Court has ruled on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Senator Obama and the Democratic National Committee in the Berg v. Obama case. Some of the visitors to this website have posted comments claiming the Court has ruled. The comments on this site were written by visitors to the site.

You develop your line of argument further by referring us to a right wing blog that features an unsigned and undated document along with some commentary to the effect that Obama has been slapped with a court order. You obviously didn't make any effort to sort out whether this is a false impression, nor did you acknowledge the possibility of a false impression when you cited the right wing blog. This lack of caution turns out to be very telling.

Yes that link is inactive as of now. However Berg's site states the same.

(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 09/29/08) - 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 filed his Opposition and Brief to Obama and Democratic National Committee [DNC] Joint Motion to Dismiss in the case of Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083. Berg feels confident that he has “Standing” and the Court will allow the case to go forward. Our response was due in 14 days, but the Court requested our answer by Monday, September 29, 2008 and we complied.
In our response we set forth sufficient reasons that I have “Standing” to bring this lawsuit. Furthermore, I set forth additional reasons that indicate Obama does not meet the qualifications for President of the United States and Obama should be removed from the ballot and held accountable.
Our website obamacrimes.com has received 17.1 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website – and forward to your local newspapers and radio and TV stations.
Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, “we” the people, are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis” if this case is not resolved forthwith.
For copies of all court pleadings, go to obamacrimes.com.

Based on the fact that your contentions have revolved around the birth certificate, you obviously hadn't read Philip Berg's suit even though you have us a Justia link (your post #19). If you had read Berg's suit, you'd know he doesn't think the birth certificate is the crux. He seems to feel there might be a case even if the certificate is authenticated.

There may be additional complications but the basic issue is the birth certificate. When it is produced and itws authenticity verified by an impartial judge, it will go a long way to resolving this issue. Why you opposes this only suggests you have political rather than constitutional motives.

You stated that the citizenship issue can and should be resolved now, thereby suggesting that the only reason it hasn't been resolved is because Obama has been stonewalling. This is a gross oversimplification and misses the distinct possibility that Mr. Berg will want to continue his law suit once the birth certificate has been authenticated. Your rendering of how this case is progressing is not grounded in what we know about Mr. Berg's law suit and appears to be another swipe at Obama.

I cannot believe you wrote this. Of course he is stonewalling. He has a choice to produce the birth certificate or hire those like Joe Sandler to protect him from producing it. This is Joe Sandler:
Atlas Shrugs: OBAMA USES TERROR LAWYER TO FIGHT FORGED BIRTH CERTIFICATE LAWSUIT

If Mr. Sandler's name sounds familiar it Should. He is the Legal Hit Man for the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR is an organization with terrorist ties, and has been as an un-indicted co-conspiritor in the Holyland Foundation Hamas Funding trial.
Sandler's role for CAIR has been to stifle people from telling the truth about Islam. For example, last year he tried to get Jihad Expert Robert Spencer banned from speaking to the Young American Foundation by using a threatening letter. Sandler followed up by threatening columnist Mike Adams for writing about the Spencer incident.

Taken together, all this gives me the impression that you really weren't interested in the facts at all and were simply taken away with the opportunity to undermine Obama's stature, and kept hammering as though you feel you need to do your part in making sure the right wing propaganda machine will destroy Obama. I notice you spent the better part of the day yesterday on this thread, mostly just repeating yourself and not adding any new information.

Taken together assures me that your political concerns dominate any value of the truth in this matter. This is obvious stonewalling and his beliefs are obvious as evidence this circle he runs with.

Sure, but the American people have no sacred obligation to accept rumors as fact.


It is Obama's stonewalling that doesn't allow for resolution and furthers all sorts of rumors


I would add that one way for a person to be principled is to start by taking responsibility for the quality of their communications. I would think that would include doing some very basic fact checks and not getting too carried away with misinformation when the opportunity presents itself.

The facts of Berg's suit have been stated on his site. You prefer political posturing.

As a general comment, the phoniness and hypocrisy of the right wing in the US is blatantly obvious when these people portray themselves as being a "force for good in the world" even as they lie and undermine the quality of existence. If you love your country, you will make a point not be part of that sickly culture of spin and

You can't see Obama for what he is because you are stuck in this good guy bad guy mentality and the right wing is the bad guys. It prevents you from recognizing this demagogue for what he is and just accept his phoniness and hypocrisy.
I'm rather experienced with phoniness and hypocrisy on both wings which is why I support those with character instead of being aligned with labels. Obama could show some character by producing his birth certificate for an impartial judge. Instead he hires a radical lawyer. This is representative of his character.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Would you call pulling the 'racism card' spin? How about the 'let's-blame-this-lawsuit-on-the-right-wing card?' Is that spin? How about the 'oh-you-Americans-are-all-so-stupid card?' Is that spin?

It is all spin. When people have respect for the constitution they supply what is necessary to prove their qualifications for the presidency when there is any question. When they don't have this respect they accuse, rely on spin, and stonewall so as to further their personal objectives. It unfortunately reveals how all too many regard the constitution.

[Nick_A]

I think this is the same as the link that died in the OP

DNC steps in to silence lawsuit over Obama birth certificate

"I've been on about 50 radio shows around the country," Berg said, "and on every one I've put out a challenge: Barack Obama, if I'm wrong, just come forth with certified copies of these documents and I'll close down the case."

So easy yet so hard!

[earl]

More likely for Palin's "troopergate" to result in legal headaches than this. earl

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

More likely for Palin's "troopergate" to result in legal headaches than this. earl

The question of Obama's qualifications for the presidnecy is a constitutional question. If his birth certificate is not produced for political purposes and Obama is elected, it is now void for anything meaningful and must be declared to be outdated sh-t. We will now be governed by self created political power.

Troopergate is just a simple debate on why someone was fired having no constitutional significance. Yet you equate them or think troopergate will become more significant. So much for the constitution. I really think it is time to just tare it up and live in relation to political power. Then on election day we can have the two candidates have a dual at dawn to the death with pistols and the winner will be the next president. Simple, fair, and the result cannot be disputed.

[earl]

Point isn't theoretical-it's actual: troopergate's findings are due prior to election and will whatever their outcome "see the light of day." This is something that won't even get out of the gate at any point. Besides, I thought that the inquiry was about naked use of political power in troopergate. earl

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

Point isn't theoretical-it's actual: troopergate's findings are due prior to election and will whatever their outcome "see the light of day." This is something that won't even get out of the gate at any point. Besides, I thought that the inquiry was about naked use of political power in troopergate. earl

At some point an authenticated birth certificate will have to be produced even if after the election. If it isn't in spite of the demand for it and Obama remains president, it just means that the constitutional requirements have been ignored. If they are not ignored and fraud is eventually revealed, Obama will have to be removed from office for fraud. If not, the constitution no longer has meaning and we pick and choose as to what we want to accept. I and many others would no longer trust its value so why not tare it up?

Which is more important for you: someone firing another or potentially invalidating the constitution?

People don't have the impartiality to consider this question and yet assume that they have the impartiality to actually have a clue as to what the deeper objective questions of religion and the meaning and purpose of life on earth. Humility is definitely not a virtue around here.

[earl]

Nick A, I'm not seeing a lot of humility in your certain-the-story-is true, anti-Democrat postings. earl

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

Nick A, I'm not seeing a lot of humility in your certain-the-story-is true, anti-Democrat postings. earl

"Humility is attentive patience." Simone Weil

This thread introduces the possibility that Obama is not a citizen. If this is the case he cannot according to the constitution become president. This is basic. One doesn' need a dozen lawyers and judges with a case of scotch to argue the fine points. All that is necessary is a verifiable birth certificate.

I don't trust Obama but that is not the issue. I've been around this mindset to know how it works. The constitution is the issue. I don't know if the suit is valid or not but the constitution is important enough to deserve proof one way or another. If he produces it, that is the end of it and we save a case of scotch for ourselves rather than donate it for these legal deliberations. What does this have to do with humility? It means that I must have the attentive patience to be open minded rather then get lost in denial. My mind is not made up but understand why it is essential to verify the truth one way or another regarding something so basic as it pertains to the constitution.

Earl, I hope you realize that the need for proof is not the same as agreement with one side or another but rather the proper course for reconciling disagreement.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

You call it a rumor and Berg's site calls it true.

Obama Crimes

Obama Crimes is not Mr. Berg's site.

What are we to think when you attribute a position to Mr. Berg even though the web site you refer us to informs us that Mr. Berg's position is different from what you say it is??

Your original contention was that court had sided with Mr. Berg and had demanded Obama's cooperation in the inquiry that had presumably been set into motion by Mr. Berg's law suit. In an apparent attempt to reinforce the false impression, you then referred us several right wing sites (one of them run by a former Rush Limbaugh associate) that claim that the court has sides with Mr. Berg and issued an order to Obama. This is misinformation.

In the post I'm responding to now you misinforms us yet again. Contrary to what you claim, Mr. Berg has acknowledged that an internet rumour is afoot.

I get the impression that you haven't read any of the web pages you've cited.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Obama Crimes is not Mr. Berg's site.

Correction: Obama Crimes does appear to be Mr. Berg's site. He had his webmaster clarify the rumour about the court having made a ruling. Unfortunately this does not specifically address the internet rumour about the court allegedly ordering Obama to produce a birth certificate.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

At some point an authenticated birth certificate will have to be produced even if after the election.

Is there some reason why the state of Hawaii can't provide one to the Pennsylvania court now? This seems like an unduly onerous and inefficient way to get the birth certificate issue out of the way.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

This thread introduces the possibility that Obama is not a citizen. If this is the case he cannot according to the constitution become president. This is basic. One doesn' need a dozen lawyers and judges with a case of scotch to argue the fine points. All that is necessary is a verifiable birth certificate.

The birth certificate is not the only issue under consideration and settling that issue would not necessarily mean the end of the story.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

I can only pass along what I read.

It is now more than 50 posts after your OP. Based on your most recent comments, I surmise you still haven't read Mr. Berg's web page or the law suit he filed or the various internet pages you've linked - all of which explain in substantial detail why the birth certificate issue is not the crux of the matter.

In your constitutionalist zeal you seem to have completely lost sight of the importance of accurate reporting.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Correction: Obama Crimes does appear to be Mr. Berg's site. He had his webmaster clarify the rumour about the court having made a ruling. Unfortunately this does not specifically address the internet rumour about the court allegedly ordering Obama to produce a birth certificate.


Is there some reason why the state of Hawaii can't provide one to the Pennsylvania court now? This seems like an unduly onerous and inefficient way to get the birth certificate issue out of the way.


The birth certificate is not the only issue under consideration and settling that issue would not necessarily mean the end of the story.


It is now more than 50 posts after your OP. Based on your most recent comments, I surmise you still haven't read Mr. Berg's web page or the law suit he filed or the various internet pages you've linked - all of which explain in substantial detail why the birth certificate issue is not the crux of the matter.

In your constitutionalist zeal you seem to have completely lost sight of the importance of accurate reporting.

Netti

Is there some reason why the state of Hawaii can't provide one to the Pennsylvania court now? This seems like an unduly onerous and inefficient way to get the birth certificate issue out of the way.


I don't know. I do know that attempts are being made to acquire the appropriate documents.

Obama Crimes

Plaintiff served discovery in way of Admissions and Request for Production of Documents, on Defendants on September 15, 2008 and has attempted to obtain verification of Obama’s eligibility through Subpoenas to the Government entities and the Hospital’s in Hawaii. To date, Plaintiff has not received the requested discovery from the Defendants and two (2) of the locations, which subpoenas were served upon, refused to honor the subpoena.

For the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff respectfully request Defendants Barack Hussein Obama and the Democratic National Committee’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) be denied and order immediate discovery, including but not limited to: 1) a certified copy of Obama’s “vault” (original long version) Birth Certificate; and (2) a certified copy of Obama’s Certificate of Citizenship; and (3) a certified copy of the Oath of Allegiance taken by Obama taken at the age of majority. If the Court is inclined to grant Defendants motion, Plaintiff respectfully requests the opportunity to amend his Complaint pursuant to the findings of this Honorable Court.

The birth certificate is not the only issue under consideration and settling that issue would not necessarily mean the end of the story.


It does appear that it would be the end of the story for Berg.

DNC steps in to silence lawsuit over Obama birth certificate

Berg acknowledges that as long as his lawsuit remains outstanding, the public will talk, and he told WND he wants Obama to quickly prove him wrong or the court to quickly prove him right.
"I've been on about 50 radio shows around the country," Berg said, "and on every one I've put out a challenge: Barack Obama, if I'm wrong, just come forth with certified copies of these documents and I'll close down the case."
Simple enough. If the documents are produced, Berg shuts down the case.

What I cannot understand is why you have such animosity and carry on so against the obvious solution which is for Obama to produce these documents in respect for the constitution. It seems that for you the election of Obama is more important than the constitution. Many others feel this way which I find extremely frightening but I guess normal for the hypocrisy of the human condition.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Obama Crimes

Plaintiff served discovery in way of Admissions and Request for Production of Documents, on Defendants on September 15, 2008 and has attempted to obtain verification of Obama’s eligibility through Subpoenas to the Government entities and the Hospital’s in Hawaii. To date, Plaintiff has not received the requested discovery from the Defendants and two (2) of the locations, which subpoenas were served upon, refused to honor the subpoena.

For the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff respectfully request Defendants Barack Hussein Obama and the Democratic National Committee’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) be denied and order immediate discovery, including but not limited to: 1) a certified copy of Obama’s “vault” (original long version) Birth Certificate

It does appear that it would be the end of the story for Berg.

Nick, the passage you cite specifically says that Mr. Berg is not only asking for the birth certificate. It's odd that you cite information that supports my view and contradicts yours and then you continue on as though you have contradicted me. It's as though you're not reading the material.

Your comments leave little doubt that you have a very incomplete understanding of the issues. But what is more problematic is that you don't seem to want to understand.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

It seems that for you the election of Obama is more important than the constitution. Many others feel this way which I find extremely frightening but I guess normal for the hypocrisy of the human condition.

My impression of your handling of an internet rumour is that you have no sense of responsibility for truth. That I find frightening.

My suggestion to you is that you apologize for using this forum to spread an internet rumour.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Nick, the passage you cite specifically says that Mr. Berg is not only asking for the birth certificate. It's odd that you cite information that supports my view and contradicts yours and then you continue on as though you have contradicted me. It's as though you're not reading the material.

Your comments leave little doubt that you have a very incomplete understanding of the issues. But what is more problematic is that you don't seem to want to understand.


My impression of your handling of an internet rumour is that you have no sense of responsibility for truth. That I find frightening.

My suggestion to you is that you apologize for using this forum to spread an internet rumour.

Netti

Nick, the passage you cite specifically says that Mr. Berg is not only asking for the birth certificate. It's odd that you cite information that supports my view and contradicts yours and then you continue on as though you have contradicted me. It's as though you're not reading the material.

Your comments leave little doubt that you have a very incomplete understanding of the issues. But what is more problematic is that you don't seem to want to understand.

But the bottom line is the bottom line. Berg said as quoted in my previous post:

"I've been on about 50 radio shows around the country," Berg said, "and on every one I've put out a challenge: Barack Obama, if I'm wrong, just come forth with certified copies of these documents and I'll close down the case."

It is screamingly obvious that this is the bottom line, Why you would try to dance around it suggests ulterior motives.


Atheism is a rumor yet it is discussed on this site. Discussion when honest is an attempt to get to the truth of the matter. Here we have a constitutional question. Obama is doing everything he can to deny it by withholding the appropriate documents. Do we honor this tactic as is normal in these times of selective morality or do we defend the objectivity of the constitution and its attempt to further equal responsibility under the law including this new "savior?"


The day I apologize for revealing potential election fraud is still hopefully far off regardless of how politically incorrect the truth may be.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Netti



But the bottom line is the bottom line. Berg said as quoted in my previous post:



It is screamingly obvious that this is the bottom line

You would not claim this (yet again) if you had actually read Berg's law suit or the various internet sources you've cited, which explain at length that the birth certificate is not the bottom line.

It is now three days into this discussion, and it's obvious that you still haven't looked at all the issues. It seems you are philosophically opposed to developing a more informed view on the matter.

Feel free to peddle your half truths. Just don't expect me to take it seriously. Actually I'm at a loss as to how to respond to someone who has refused to take the time to read the actual lawsuit that is at the core of the matter and who apparently feels totally justified in using this forum as an outlet for rumour mongering.