Obama's Birth Certificate

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

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.
[/size][/font]

For anyone wishing to read the suit itself it can be found here:

http://www.obamacrimes.com/attachmen...aComplaint.pdf

Anyne reading it can find details and become attached to them at the expense of the basic question that is expressed at the beginning in the preliminary statement:

1. Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, states in particular part, “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; neither shall any Person
be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and
been Fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” Furthermore, all Presidents
since and including Martin Van Buren were born in the United States subsequent to the
Declaration of Independence.
2. “The general doctrine of our Constitution is, that the executive power of the nation is
vested in the President; subject only to the exceptions and qualifications, which are
expressed in the instrument.” 7 Works of Alexander Hamilton, J. C. Hamilton ed. (New

C:\Documents and Settings\Geoff\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\RUX63DMN\ObamaComplaint.doc 1

York: 1851), 76, 80–81 (emphasis in original), U.S. Constitution, Article II (Hamilton and
Madison.)
3. Obama is a representative of the Democratic People. However, the Obama must meet the
Qualifications specified for the United States Office of the President, which is he must be
a “natural born” citizen. Unfortunately, Obama is not a “natural born” citizen. Just to
name one of the problems, Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an
Indonesian citizen and relocated herself and Obama to Indonesia wherein Obama’s
mother naturalized in Indonesia and Obama followed her naturalization, as he was a
minor and in the custody of his mother. Obama failed to take the oath of allegiance when
he turned eighteen (18) years to regain his United States Citizenship status.
4. The Democratic National Committee is for Plaintiff and “We the People” who believe in
the Democratic Vision. The Democratic National Party is supposed to represent the
Democratic Americans in seeking honest leadership, Open Government, Real Security,
Energy Independence, Economic Prosperity, Educational Excellence, a Healthcare
System that works for Everyone and Retirement Security. The Democratic Party is
supposed to represent and protect the interests of working Americans and guaranteeing
personal liberties for all. Of which includes securing a Democratic Nominee on the
Presidential Election ballot who represents the Democratic vision and who is qualified
and eligible to run for Office of the President under the qualifications of the United States
Constitution.
5. The actions of Obama, a U.S. Senator, in running for President of the United States,

knowing he is not eligible, have been taken entirely without authorization under the

United States Constitution, completely ignoring the qualification and procedures created
by the United States Constitution he is purporting to enforce.
6. Should Obama become the Nominee of the Democratic Party and then be discovered by
virtue of malfeasance, or negligence, on his part not to have revealed material evidence
showing him to be Ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America
and thereby his Nomination be declared void by the appropriate Authorities Acting under
the Law, Plaintiff as well as other Democratic Americans will suffer Irreparable Harm
including but not limited to:

A)

Continue reading. This is the bottom line. Everyone must determine for themselves if they are willing to sacrifice the value of the constitution for political gain. If so lets tare it up and start again.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

If he produces it, that is the end of it

False. He already produced it, long ago. That is not the end of it, because this Berg, if not outright paranoid schizophrenic, is certainly crazed, and will have an infinite number of demands no matter what he is given.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Is there some reason why the state of Hawaii can't provide one to the Pennsylvania court now?

Because the Pennsylvania court has not asked for it, and has no reason to want to ask for it. If Berg doesn't trust the copy Obama published, he can ask Hawaii for a copy, himself: it is public record. Why doesn't he just make a request to the Hawaiian bureau of vital statistics? Why is he troubling this judge in Philadelphia who has no interest in Berg's delusions?

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by bob x

False. He already produced it, long ago. That is not the end of it, because this Berg, if not outright paranoid schizophrenic, is certainly crazed, and will have an infinite number of demands no matter what he is given.

Because the Pennsylvania court has not asked for it, and has no reason to want to ask for it. If Berg doesn't trust the copy Obama published, he can ask Hawaii for a copy, himself: it is public record. Why doesn't he just make a request to the Hawaiian bureau of vital statistics? Why is he troubling this judge in Philadelphia who has no interest in Berg's delusions?

You should have told Obama so that he could save money on the lawyer Joe Sandler. Why hire this lawyer if all one has to do is ask for a birth certificate?

Maybe next year it will come to trial and if no birth certificate, Obama by law would have to be removed. Better late than never if proven for someone to openly deny the constitution and commit voter fraud.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Maybe next year it will come to trial and if no birth certificate, Obama by law would have to be removed.

Maybe.
......

[earl]

OK, I've been keeping it in my drawer.
http://www.politifact.com/media/img/...hCertObama.jpg

earl

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

You should have told Obama so that he could save money on the lawyer Joe Sandler.

His campaign is taking in plenty of money, and the lawyer does not have to do much of anything that would rack up much billing, anyway.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Why hire this lawyer

Because Obama is not going to waste even one second of his own time on this nonsense.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

if all one has to do is ask for a birth certificate?

That ISN'T all Obama had to do. When the baseless rumor first came up, he thought all he had to do was ask for his birth certificate and publish it; but, since this Berg fellow has a bottomless well of BS...

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Maybe next year it will come to trial

There is zero chance of that. Questions as to the legality of electoral votes for this or that Presidential candidate are exclusively decided by the Joint Session of Congress: for example, in the 1872 election, some electors felt oath-bound to cast votes for Horace Greeley, even though Greeley had a massive heart attack and died when the November returns came in and showed how badly he was trounced; although it didn't matter (since Grant had overwhelming majority), Congress did rule that votes for Greeley could not be counted, on grounds that a dead man is ineligible.

Under "separation of powers" doctrine, courts do not decide matters which are decided by Congress. This Philadelphia judge has nothing to with this, and there is no chance he will issue any ruling except a dismissal of the case, perhaps accompanied by a severe rebuke to Berg for wasting the court's time (since he is, or at least claims to be, an attorney, who should know better). The judge is in no hurry to do this, for two reasons: one, like all judges he has a large backlog of REAL cases to deal with, and this kind of nonsense is at the bottom of his pile (Berg forced it to the top of the pile once, by asking for an "injunction" which the judge had to attend to: DENIED, instantly); and two, if he dismissed now, of course Berg would appeal and start wasting the time of the Circuit Court, so most likely the judge will let it set on the bottom of his pile for eight years, through Obama's second term.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

OK, I've been keeping it in my drawer.
http://www.politifact.com/media/img/...hCertObama.jpg

earl

Unfortunately, that is the one that is suspected to be a fraud for several reasons. Again, as much as you trust this savior, I prefer to have it authenticated in respect to the constitution and put the question to rest. Hopefully you respect the constitution enough to agree that impartial verification of the document in question is the right thing to do.

[earl]

Nick A, it matters not in the least to me 1 way or another whether anyone inspects his birth certificate. But what I have noticed is that the more McCain has been sinking in the polls the past few weeks, the more really off-beat, anti-Obama stuff you post here. earl

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

Nick A, it matters not in the least to me 1 way or another whether anyone inspects his birth certificate. But what I have noticed is that the more McCain has been sinking in the polls the past few weeks, the more really off-beat, anti-Obama stuff you post here. earl

You are caught up in politics. You cannot see the constitution as a separate question that reconciles political opposition. It is the same with religion and why you won't understand its purpose of reconciliation of duality from a higher perspective. You have decided right and wrong while my concern is maintaining freedom of process. We have an essential difference.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by bob x

His campaign is taking in plenty of money, and the lawyer does not have to do much of anything that would rack up much billing, anyway.

Because Obama is not going to waste even one second of his own time on this nonsense.

That ISN'T all Obama had to do. When the baseless rumor first came up, he thought all he had to do was ask for his birth certificate and publish it; but, since this Berg fellow has a bottomless well of BS...

There is zero chance of that. Questions as to the legality of electoral votes for this or that Presidential candidate are exclusively decided by the Joint Session of Congress: for example, in the 1872 election, some electors felt oath-bound to cast votes for Horace Greeley, even though Greeley had a massive heart attack and died when the November returns came in and showed how badly he was trounced; although it didn't matter (since Grant had overwhelming majority), Congress did rule that votes for Greeley could not be counted, on grounds that a dead man is ineligible.

Under "separation of powers" doctrine, courts do not decide matters which are decided by Congress. This Philadelphia judge has nothing to with this, and there is no chance he will issue any ruling except a dismissal of the case, perhaps accompanied by a severe rebuke to Berg for wasting the court's time (since he is, or at least claims to be, an attorney, who should know better). The judge is in no hurry to do this, for two reasons: one, like all judges he has a large backlog of REAL cases to deal with, and this kind of nonsense is at the bottom of his pile (Berg forced it to the top of the pile once, by asking for an "injunction" which the judge had to attend to: DENIED, instantly); and two, if he dismissed now, of course Berg would appeal and start wasting the time of the Circuit Court, so most likely the judge will let it set on the bottom of his pile for eight years, through Obama's second term.

If this matter is not resolved before election it will continue to grow. At some point from increasing demand it is proven that Obama faked it and is not qualified under the constitution, he must be removed. You have no idea the chaos that will result but we have no choice if we respect the constitution. The judge would be naive to postpone this and risk such a condition but since OJ was judged innocent, nothing surprises me.

[lunamoth]

What incredible silliness.

Originally Posted by factcheck.org

We think our colleagues at PolitiFact.com, who also dug into some of these loopy theories put it pretty well: "It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what’s reasonable has to take over."

In fact, the conspiracy would need to be even deeper than our colleagues realized. In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961:


Obama's birth announcement (here there was a picture of the announcement in the local paper about Barack's birth)



The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded that Obama "likely" was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu.


Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.

From:

FactCheck.org: Born in the U.S.A.

FactCheck.org: About FactCheck.org

[wil]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

What incredible silliness.



From:

FactCheck.org: Born in the U.S.A.

FactCheck.org: About FactCheck.org

Yes now about that alien lizard lineage of McCain...

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by wil

Yes now about that alien lizard lineage of McCain...

Well, there is this:

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

The judge would be naive to postpone this and risk such a condition

The judge has nothing to do with this.

The judge is not in charge of record-keeping for the state of Hawaii: if you are really interested in knowing whether there is a birth certificate for him in Hawaii, then apply to the bureau of vital statistics in that state. If you want some official, with authority to do something, to check the birth records, then write to your Congressman and Senator, because, I REPEAT:

The judge is also not in charge of verifying candidacies: the legitimacy of the electoral votes for President is exclusively up to the Joint Session of Congress.

Why are you expecting a judge, who has no authority over either the birth records of Hawaii or the vote count in Washington, to do anything? He wouldn't do anything even if there was any evidence of there being something to look into: it is not his job. And you haven't shown any evidence of anything.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Unfortunately, that is the one that is suspected to be a fraud for several reasons.

Suspected by who? That lunatic Berg? Forgive me if I do not consider him an authoritative source. "Several" reasons? Like WHAT, for example?

I do not find any more reason to question that Obama was born in Hawaii than to question that McCain was born in Panama, or Palin in Idaho, or Biden in Pennsylvania. There are plenty of people who have known all of these candidates at all stages of their lives, who have been interviewed over and over again. We know more than anyone would possibly need to know about all of their life stories.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by wil

Yes now about that alien lizard lineage of McCain...

And an RFLP analysis of McCain DNA vs. reptile DNA shows only minimal variations: