Berg v Obama Citizenship Dismissed in Philadelphia Court
Posted on October 25, 2008
Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook
This photo is not a subliminal message – it’s a threatPhilip Berg’s lawsuit against Barack Obama and the DNC has been dismissed in a Philadelphia Federal Court.
Jeff Schreiber at America’s Right is reporting that Judge Surrick finds that Berg lacks “standing,” and further from Schreiber:
A judge’s attitude toward the factual foundation of a plaintiff’s claims is an essential factor in understanding just who indeed has standing to sue. The question running to the heart of the standing doctrine is whether or not the plaintiff indeed has a personal stake in the outcome of the otherwise justiciable matter being adjudicated. As has been discussed before many times here at America’s Right, a plaintiff wishing to have standing to sue must show (1) a particularized injury-in-fact, (2) evidence showing that that the party being sued actually caused the plaintiff’s particularized injury-in-fact, and (3) that adjudication of the matter would actually provide redress.
In this case, Judge Surrick’s attitude toward the evidence presented by Berg to support his allegations figures in heavily because, while there is a three-pronged test to standing in itself, there is no definitive test by which the court can determine whether a certain harm is enough to satisfy the first element of that three-pronged test by showing true injury-in-fact. Traditionally, it hasn’t taken much to satisfy the need for an injury-in-fact, but as the plaintiff’s claimed injury is perceived as being more remote, more creative, or more speculative, the injury-in-fact requirement becomes more difficult to satisfy.
What this means is that our Federal courts do not consider a possible fraudulent filing for the office of U.S. President, possible fraudulent campaign for President and possible fraudulent taking of the oath of office, and stepping into the Oval Office as an “injury” to the people of this country. That’s the bottom line. Until an unqualified person actually takes the office, “we the people” have not been injured.
So who does have standing, Schrieber asks?: “According to the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, that’s completely up to Congress to decide.”
If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.
Assuming this is true, are we so naive as to think that Congress does not know this?
Maybe the DNC has properly vetted their candidate, but it appears they may not have done so, simply because they have not put this matter to rest.
I have had numerous commenters claiming that the DNC knows his citizenship status – because, as one commenter said “they check these things, you know.” Well, if that is so, why would the Senate not have stepped up with a non-binding resolution declaring his natural born status, as they did on John MaCain’s behalf? How incredible is this?
Read Schreiber’s entire report which is packed with additional info.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Activist Judges, Elections, News, Representative Government, The United States of America, U.S. Constitution, Voter/Election Fraud
Trackback URL
Comments
67 Responses to “Berg v Obama Citizenship Dismissed in Philadelphia Court”
Leave a Reply
Handled right, the Fed District Court throwing out Berg for lack of standing can present a political check-mate “win” on appeal for the anti-Obama side (if not in law, in the Court of Public Opinion). Here’s how: SIMPLY SPREAD AROUND OBAMA’S APPELLATE BRIEF HAVING TO ARGUE AGAINST AN AMERICAN VOTER’S RIGHT TO RAISE THE QUESTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. Should be a PR disaster for the Dems and Obama!!!
It. Aint. Over.
Ted, exactly. I don’t think America will let this drop, despite the MSM and our almost ONE-HALF OF CONGRESS WEENIES. Where are they? Why are they not asking the questions?
Yes, this would be desirable for Obama, but I guess he thinks it more desirable than showing proof.
The Machine: I agree.
A likely scenario to be played out is that BHO wins the election……..with no other candidate to “pick on” the MSM will begin to look at alagations surrounding “the one”. Especially when the left press attempts to recapture a bit of credability. After the election Barrack Derangement Syndrome will be at full stregth. There is a lot of time between Nov. 4th and the 20th of Jan. and much damage in and out of court can and probably will be visited on BHO. This thing is not over by a long shot, the real victims will be the American citizen.
Yes, the period between Nov. 4 and inauguration day will be lively. The real victims are already the American citizen.
Thanks tonynoboloney.
C’mon folks, grow up.
His birth certificate was issued and certified by the Hawaii Dept. of Heath: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
There is nothing here with this issue except 9/11 Truther Crackpots like Berg.
Other Ed: Maybe so, but it appears that the factcheck bc is also not real. Rather than just believing it, check around – then believe it, if you can
This was expected. It was clear to everyone that had to sit through first year civil procedure that Berg didn’t have standing.
Here’s what Berg did: He brought a great deal of attention to the fact that there are important things we do not know.
What if Obama is not a citizen? We would have never even considered such a thing happening.
hahaahaa obama is gonna be your president that is born in kenya or indonesia..its punish time it TO AMERICA
SO THE COURT WILL DECIDE NOT THE PEOPLE…..HAHAHAHAH DONT LET OBAMA FOOL YOU!
For those who have been perusing the articles I have posted over the past several days, and who possibly read that the Pennsylvania court case, Berg v. Obama et al, was dismissed, here’s my quick, uneducated take on it:
The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick’s ruling portends, in my opinion, the coming of a true Constitutional crisis. Judge Surrick didn’t actually rule on any of the merits of the case; rather, that the plaintiff (former PA Deputy Attorney General/lifelong democrat) simply did not have “standing” to present the case.
At issue in the “standing” verdict, I see two main points: that no voter can challenge a federal election in federal court, simply because he is a voter (along the same logic that no taxpayer can sue the federal government by virtue of his “taxpayer-ness”).
The other mitigating factor in the dismissal is the issue of “injury-in-fact.” The plaintiff has to be able to demonstrate a real and measurable injury. The fact is, Obama is only “running” for office; whereas, the constitution merely states that someone cannot “hold” the office of President if the rules of eligibity are not met. Theoretically, nodoby has sustained actual injury if there is but a chance the injury could occur.
My very brief response to these two arguments is that, if a voter has “no standing” in matters pertaining to a federal election, then the notion of “Government of the people, by the people, and for the people” actually has little meaning (if “the people” truly have no voice); and shouldn’t the act of running for office suffice as intent to hold the office? That kind of thinking seems to necessarily preclude any preventative dynamics in law (we can’t adjudicate attempted felons—only those who are successful with their crimes).
But, these brief conclusions lead me to a much deeper question, for which I believe there are two possible answers. Were the framers of our Constitution remiss in their lack of defining who has “standing” in cases of presidential election fraud (since the Constitution, while defining the qualifications of the POTUS, mentions nowhere who has the right to challenge (on a federal level) the qualifications of someone who aspires to that office?
First, our Constitution begins, “We the people . . .” I think it should be fairly easily discerned that, when no federal or state body is charged with authority over or duty for a specific aspect of the Constitution, the framers were implying that it would remain with those on whose behalf the document was framed (we the people). As a voting citizen, this is part of Judge Surrick’s decision with which I must heartily disagree. I am a bona fide member of “we the people.”
However (and this is just a personal inclination), I believe it is wholly possible that our forefathers never even considered such a fraud even to be plausible—that someone, who either has not or cannot show proof of eligibility, would be able to travel this far down the campaign trail. And it is that belief that causes me, not just a little concern and patriotic anger, but also a firm conviction that this is no small “loophole” in our Constituion—one that should be tied and tightened in short order.
While the PA case will likely be appealed—probably to the Supreme Court, take note that there are presently eight known similar cases that have been filed in other state courts (not federal court, as the PA case was). This may be the more proper avenue anyway, since election day actually boils down to the several states all holding their elections on the same day. And, state courts don’t have the same requirement of proving “standing” that the federal courts have.
In those state cases, since each state’s Secretary of State is charged with verifying the eligibility of all candidates on the ballot (in some states it is the Board of Elections), they are being challenged to supply proof that that verification has occurred by producing certified copies of Sen. Obama’s “vault” birth certificate (the long form on file in Hawaii—not the more-easily-obtained “certification of live birth” that can be supplied by the state without the person actually having been born there—yes, another loophole). The suits charge that, if the documents have not or cannot be produced, the candidate must be removed from that state’s ballots.
So, this battle is not yet over; expect to see a lot more about it in the coming days. And, the deadline is not actually Nov.4 (although it would be nice for this to be settled before then) because that’s not the day when the POTUS is actually elected. The Meeting of the Electors occurs this year on December 15, and is to be confirmed by both houses of Congress on January 6. It is my understanding that, until that time, either candidate could be disqualified because of ineligibility or fraud.
In conclusion, I would just like to echo the question that has already been asked so many times,
“Sen. Obama, why not just produce the documents that prove your eligibility, and save everyone all this time and hassle? What are you hiding?”
Just my two cents’ worth.
Dean Haskins
“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?” From http://www.obamacrimes.com/
Opine, in related posts to this url. History should have taught us to trust no Republican.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
7 FAM 1131.2 Prerequisites for Transmitting U.S.
Citizenship
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
Since 1790, there have been two prerequisites for transmitting U.S.
citizenship to children born abroad:
(1) At least one natural parent must have been a U.S. citizen when the
child was born. The only exception is for a posthumous child.
(2) The U.S. citizen parent(s) must have resided or been physically
present in the United States for the time required by the law in
effect when the child was born.
Opine encompasses and applies to all my contributions under mapped moniker.
This issue is now in 9 state courts too..
This issue is not going away anytime soon.
It is creepy that he won’t give up the detailed ‘vault / long form’ version.
John Mc Cain did..
A citizen doesn’t have legal ’standing’ to require the courts to uphold the U.S. Constitution? Obama has not produced a valid birth certificate, which further supports the credible evidence Berg produced. Rather than put the issue to rest by simply producing a valid birth certificate or and addressing the other disqualifying issues raised by Berg, Obama and the DNC instead bet the farm on a subjective legal technicality to avoid having to produce prove he is naturalized U.S. citizen. The truth is that having not been properly vetted, Obama may if fact not be eligible to be either a U.S. Senator or President of the United States. Every veteran, including myself, took an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States. Senator Obama, the DNC lawyers and the judge who carelessly dismissed this case, all took a similar oath. However rather than defend the Constitution, they acted to dismiss a citizens valid concern rather than require Obama to supply proof of citizenship. Now what do we do?
This is very important stuff. Please read through all of it very thoroughly. Visit the websites and view the evidence for yourself. Use the facts to reach your own decision regarding this matter. I have been following this for about a week now and cannot believe that the main stream media will not touch it. Savage and Limbaugh have just started to talk about it in the last 2 days. The documentation to repudiate all of this is very simple for Obama & company to obtain and release if it exists. However, they chose to keep it secret. What do they have to hide? Does the college documentation that he won’t release show that he registered for college as an Indonesian of the Muslim faith? What is the big secret? What is being hidden from the American people?
Senator Obama is not constitutionally qualified to hold the office of President of the United States. He is, however, most likely an illegal alien that should be arrested and deported. Read all of the material below and ask yourself, could you as a United States citizen obtain a passport and travel to Cuba right now? The same exact situation existed in the early 1980’s regarding travel to Pakistan. Travel to Pakistan was absolutely banned for United States citizens, but yet it is well documented that Barak Obama did indeed travel there. It is also well documented that he stopped in Indonesia on his way there. There is little doubt that at age 20 Obama was still an Indonesian citizen with an Indonesian passport. He stopped to get the passport renewed prior to continuing on to Pakistan. Exactly where he was born has no bearing on all of this, the constitutional law at the time mandated that a minor child’s citizenship mirrored the guardian parent’s citizenship. Obama’s mother recanted her American citizenship, travelled to Indonesia, changed her citizenship to Indonesian, and married Barak’s stepfather an Indonesian national. This means that Barak’s citizenship also changed along with his mother’s. Little Barak (Barry at the time) could not be enrolled in school in Indonesia as an American citizen of the Christian faith. He could, however, be enrolled in school as an Indonesian citizen of the Muslim faith. The photographic evidence as obtained by the A.P. reported in Indonesia would seem to support this in a very substantial way. There is absolutely no record of Barak or his mother swearing an oath of allegiance to the US (required to repatriate citizenship back to the US) from the time he was able to do so at age 18 to the present. This means that his current citizenship still lies with Indonesia. He has been using the Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii to establish citizenship, but its use to do so is flawed and fraudulent since his citizenship lies elsewhere.
Here are the links for how to go about getting a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/hawnbirth.html
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/newbirthcert.html
I am including several links regarding constitutional eligibility for Obama to be president:
http://obamacom.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-lies-to-illinois-supreme-court-on.html
http://elenad.wordpress.com/2008/10/24/states-threatening-to-remove-obama-from-polls/
http://www.obamacrimes.com/
This video pretty much sums up the entire argument in a fairly precise manner, professionally produced:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs
And here is a news report on it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_i8NHifI1g
The document that I have attached to this email is a generalized template for filing a lawsuit with a Secretary of State compelling him/her to thoroughly and completely establish eligibility of Barak to be on the state’s ballot for President. You can also view the template text here: http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/10/draft-cal-template-to-sue-for-bocolb.html This is indeed a state matter since you are actually voting for state electors who will then cast their vote for president. Responsibility for vetting each candidate’s eligibility lies with each Secretary of State. The template will need to be updated with each state’s Sec. name and appropriate codes and regulations. Pass this along to as many people as you can and hope that one or several atty’s in your state will pick it up and do the legal leg work to get this submitted before election day. Time is of the essence.
Picture the Constitutional Crisis that will develop if Obama is elected and then it is established that he is not eligible to be president. If this happens between election day and swearing in, we will encounter a situation where Bush/Cheney would not be allowed to continue in office (constitution only allows for 2 terms), Obama/Biden cannot take office, so Nancy Pelosi will have to be sworn in since she is third in line to assume the presidency. Voting for Obama could be the equivalent to voting for Pelosi.
Please, just explain how a 20 year old Barak legally travelled to Pakistan? It was a banned country at the time just like Cuba is now. Explain why Barak needed to stop over in Indonesia on his way to Pakistan. Since everyone contends that he has obtained a US passport based on his US citizenship, how about a look at that passport to see about his Pakistan travels.
The truth is, he stopped in Indonesia to get his Indonesian passport updated. Since only Indonesians can hold an Indonesian passport, where is the documentation showing Barak’s oath of allegiance to regain his US citizenship? What, doesn’t have one? That means he is currently an illegal allien.
Much ado about nothing, because he loses on Nov 4 anyway.
I just want the country to stop hurting. McCain is not the answer and neither is a president shrouded in mystery, being attacked concerning his eligibility. I’m considering writing in Al Gore. At least the environment will get fixed that way.
And, will some reporter simply ask Barack Obama about this (from bouncingrealitychecks.blogspot.com):
“OBAMA’S REAL BIRTH LOCATION, AND HIS REAL FATHER: FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS
In light of the fact that the judge in the Philip Berg v. Obama and DNC case dismissed this case because of lack of standing on the part of Mr. Berg, ( http://www.americasright.com ), it is unfortunate indeed that citizens (until our Worthless Congress takes their heads out of their a**es and writes some laws protecting us from allowing this type of situation) have no recourse to prevent this situation we are about to enter, and simply must proceed to either a constitutional crisis or total destruction of the country by a marxist communist who is likely foreign born and not even basically qualified to be President. The judge might like to do more, but unless he “legislates from the bench” like liberal judges would (he is a Republican I understand), he has to rule on the basis of law — and I agree with his decision on that basis. As unfortunate as it is, the judge is likely correct in his ruling.
Here’s my take on the Obama citizenship situation. My view is a combination of both the Andy Martin theories and the Philip Berg theories. (See links in previous posts shown below.) It takes both into consideration and doesn’t ignore any of the possible scenarios. My theory:
Obama is a dead ringer for Frank Marshall Davis. Frank Marshall Davis is his father, and the “Anne” in Frank Marshall Davis’ sex/porn book IS Ann, Obama’s mother. There was an agreement between Frank Marshall Davis (as Andy Martin states) and Barack Obama, Sr. for Obama, Sr. to pose as Barack’s father. As the birth approached, Obama, Sr. wanted to move back to Kenya, and Ann agreed to go with him. She intended to come back to Hawaii before Barack’s birth and give birth to him in Hawaii. Unknowingly, she waited to long, and was too close to giving birth that the airline would not let her board a flight back to the U.S. She had no choice but to give birth to Barack in Kenya. She did, and within days after the birth flew back to Hawaii to get birth documentation. However, she was not able to get a full-fledged birth certificate since he was not born in Hawaii and only could obtain the Live Birth documentation. Additionally, Barack was not qualified to be a “natural-born citizen” as she was not yet 19 (the law at the time for children born to parents while overseas). Barack’s paternal grandmother claimed she was present for his birth in Kenya, and this is likely the case. The fraud was perpetuated until present, and she likely still does not know that Obama is not her blood grandson.
Obama, Sr. never really had a connection with Barack, Jr. as he was not his blood son, and didn’t really try to maintain any consistent relationship with him. However, the facade was continued by Ann and her parents. In Hawaii Barack became close to Frank Marshall Davis but Barack did not know until much later that Frank was Barack’s father. One reason why Barack may not want the public to know that Frank Marshall Davis was his father is likely because of Frank’s Communist admissions, and membership in the Communist Party USA (even though his stated father, Barack Obama, Sr., was also a marxist communist, but was not as related to the United States politically).
Another reason Barack may not want you to know that Frank Marshall Davis was his father is because of Davis’s graphic and infamous sex/porn book “Sex Rebel: Black (Memoirs of a Gash Gourmet),” (written under pseudonym “Bob Greene”); Greenleaf Publishing Company (Evanston, IL), 1968. This would not reflect well on Barack, especially in light of the fact that Frank Marshall Davis had homosexual proclivities, and Barack has been connected to the scandal that involved deaths of 3 homosexual men in Rev. Wright’s Trinity church near the end of 2007, even though the news media has tried to cover up any link to Barack Obama in this situation. See http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/members_of_obama_s_church_kill.“
Trust no Republican: You said:
2) The U.S. citizen parent(s) must have resided or been physically
present in the United States for the time required by the law in
effect when the child was born.
The time required may be pertinent here. Currently it say the one US citizen parent must have lived in the US for 10 years, 2 of which are after the age of 14. I’m told that in 1964 it was different, and Ann Dunham did not meet the requirement. So far, I haven’t found a copy of 1964 law.
There are also other considerations.
Lynn, I love that positive attitude.
Choprzrul, Berg says he knows that Obama traveled on an Indonesia passport. I don’t know what the truth is, but he stated it emphatically.
Tom, a write-in for Gore won’t help. McCain is not my choice, but as far as I can see, he is the only choice.
Rod Miller, I think it will continue through the courts. It won’t be timely but this is not going to go away, as several here have pointed out.
We are now dug-in. If he is a natural born, fine. But prove it. Someone will make that happen.
Maggie, This country is not about the only choice. In life you never have only one choice.
WHAT STATE COURTS IS THERE PENDING LAWSUITS RE: OBAMA’S CITIZENSHIP, ET AL. ?
This lawsuit defines frivolous. Amazing to see supposed conservatives who want to limit the rights of seriously injured people to sue actually supporting this nonsense.
Re standing. Taxpayers do not have standing to sue over government policies they don’t like. I object to the Iraq war and my tax $ going to it. Can I sue? Every single penny the government spends someone might object to. If the courts allowed such suits they would do nothing but adjudicate this crap. These issues are left to the voters and properly so. If you think after 60 or 70 million people vote for Obama, some judge is going to stop him from being President, you’re all dumber than a post.
Look, Obama is going to win in a landslide and be President. If he screws up, I will be the first to support tossing him out in 4 years. But if he is as good as i think he can be, he will be re-elected in ana even bigger landslide.
Live with it , my friends
Berg is lucky the judge never got to the merits of the case. If you think the judge tore him a new one on standing, let me tell you what the judge would have done on the merits. I have never seen such a load of unsubstantiated crap. The man cites wikipedia as “evidence”. He may have been a lawyer at some point in the distant past, but he needs to take a refresher course in the rules of evidence.
Look if you don’t want to vote for Obama, that’s fine. But please leave the courts for those who need them and stop wasting everybody’s time.
Can anyone here who supports Obama, explain why the birth certificate SHOULD NOT be produced. It would shut everyone up. Why are you not requesting the birth certificate to prove all these people wrong.
According to the law and the age of BHO’s mother, she couldn’t have been a resident of the US for the 10 years required after age 14 — she was 18 when BHO was born.
For argument sake however, once BHO became a citizen of Indonesia he had to give up his US citizenship should he have had one. Once he did that, he could never again become a “Natural Citizen” of the US.
Tom, I’ll clarify: I have two choices. Only one is viable to me.
Reps are Hacks: Why would we consider depending on factcheck.org to certify our President?
Talk about “no standing.” Factcheck would have none.
diane contino: The requirement today is 10 years residency, two of which are after the age of 14. She did meet that requirement, barely BUT there is some thought that the requirement was different in 1964.
Indonesia: this is Berg’s argument. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship – ever. The US does, but the US citizen must ask to have it revoked.
Mr. Reality, the problem in this country is precisely our court system. I agree that Berg’s suit was certainly odd. The fact remains that we do not know that Obama is natural born.
I agree that Berg is probably an attention seeker, and he got mine and many others. It’s okay with me if he pays court costs. Eventually, though, Berg or someone will get to the bottom of this. It matters.
Why don’t you tell us how we know that Obama is natural born, and don’t bother if you’re going to tell us his campaign said so, or factcheck.org said so.
BigBlue: you won’t get an answer from them. This is elect Obama at all costs, no matter what.
Your rule applies to children born on, or after, November 14, 1986.
You cannot be president if you have dual citizenship.
Big Blue-Supposing I accused you of being a child molester and asked you to prove you weren’t. You would tell me to get lost and quite rightly so. The fact is Obama has proven his bona fides to all the relevant government agencies. He owes Mr Berg nothing. No matter what he showed, the Bergs and Big Blues of the world would be back for more.
Mr Obama travels all over the world as a senator. Do you think he arrives in Germany or at the airport on his return to the US with a non-US passport? And no one notices? I’m sorry, but he has a US passport. He has released several years of taxes filed under a valid SSN. He is a US citizen and his birth certificate has been accepted by multiple government agencies. If that’s not good enough for you, don’t vote for him, but don’t waste the court’s valuable time.
Once he became a citizen of Indonesia( if he did, which is certain, because Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship) he could no longer be president of the US. He would have become a “naturalized citizen” if he regained US citizenship. A naturalized citizen is not the same as a natural citizen. The president must be a natural citizen. Obama cannnot be president. Case Closed.
Mr. Reality, The difference is that if I possessed something to prove that I was not a child molester, I would produce it. If not I would say it was none of your business and tell you to take my word for it.
Maggie: Once again you are totally misunderstanding the legal system and the concept of burden of proof. I accuse you of being a murderer. Please prove you aren’t.
I wonder if Obama travels on a diplomatic passport since he is a Senator?
As far as the Indonesian thing, Indonesian law is irrelevant. Only US law matters. US law is absolutely clear; to lose citizenship you must formally renounce it in front of a US consular official. Only you can do it, not a parent or guardian. He was 10 years old when he lived in Indonesia; even if he had wanted to renounce his citizenship, it is very doubtful that a consular official would accept it as freely chosen. In any event, where is a State Department document showing that Obama renounced his citizenship? Show that and there might be a case; otherwise, no dice.
We are officially dumbed down. Nothing matters, our country is lost no matter how you look at it. Unless you’re a communist…
There is hope. See me in two years. I’ll explain.
By the way, all of this information can be found on the State Department web site.
Many countries automatically confer citizenship on anyone whose parent was a citizen (sometimes even grandparents). Millions of US citizens are dual nationals. Some may not even know it. That has no effect on their US citizenship.
Mr. Reality, even though the father was not a US citizen at birth, he became one through marriage with Stanley Ann (Barack’s mom, of course), did he not? Even though it appears that Barack Obama had an officially recognized birth certificate, notwithstanding that would this not apply?
• A child born outside of the United States, or its outlying possessions, to two U.S. citizen parents, married or unmarried, is entitled to U.S. citizenship provided that one of the parents had been resident in the United States, or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of the child. (No specific period of time is required.)
Big Blue: If you accused me of being a child molester, the only “proof” I would show you would be the business end of a shotgun.
Jeffrey: No, Barack’s father was not a US citizen. You don’t acquire it by marriage. It doesn’t matter. Senator Obama was born in Hawaii until someone proves differently-not by wikipedia quotes or undocumented tape recordings. He was born a US citizen and unless you can show a US State Department document in which he renounced that citizenship, he is one today. That is the law. It is also common sense.
Now if you don’t like his positions on the issues, don’t vote for him.
Thanks.
On the off chance that any of you are interested in facts rather than unsubstantiated nonsense, here is a link to the US State Department site
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html
Acquiring dual nationality through a non-US parent does NOT cause you to lose US citizenship. Only a renunciation before a US consular officer does. If you think a 10 year old Barack Obama did that and had it accepted by a consular officer, PROVE IT.
Mr. Reality, I like your style. In case you are interested. There is a lively discussion on another thread about this topic. I personally think the whole attempt smacks Republican desperation, but being a non-US citizen, you definitely would know far more on the topic than I. I just heard about this tonight for the first time and believe Republicans have sank to new and perma-frost lows so it moved me to comment here.
http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/10/25/us-district-court-rules-that-obama-was-born-in-hawaii/#comment-552450
Jeffrey: I don’t understand the surprise on the Republicans part. They F’ed up royally for the past 8 years and the democratic system is performing as it was designed to-they are being turfed out and a new bunch of bums is being put in. If the new bums deliver, they may get to run things for the next decade or more. If they F up then they will be turfed out as they will deserve.
Smart Republicans, rather than wasting time on nonsense, will try to come up with some coherent policies to offer, in case the Dems screw up.
Obama’s birth certificate: Final chapter
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
To: The Other Ed: First of all the document you are talking about is NOT a birth certificate. It is a Certification of Live Birth! They are not the same thing. Second, Its been proven that that document is a forgery! It was photoshopped! Go to You Tube and search for Oboma–birth certificate and watch the videos about it! This man is a fraud and needs to be put in jail!
So, now the Republicans, in their desperation and diversionary measures, are denying the validity/credibility of The Hawaii Department of Health in affirming its authenticity?
When the birth certificate arrived from the Obama campaign it confirmed his name as the other documents already showed it. Still, we took an extra step: We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real.
“It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo told us.
That exerpt was taken from the link hyperlinked to my name, by the way.
The judge is saying Berg and no other citizen has the standing or the right to protect the Constitution in court. He has thumbed his nose at us. He didn’t press for Obama to provide the proof of citizenship, so the judge has slipped out of that responsibility. Contact your Senators and Representatives first to see if they will immediaitely bring this to court. If that doesn’t work then we know it is time to take back our country from these corrupt bastards.
Music producer: Obama is ‘running’ for the office of the POTUS. However, he is currently ‘holding’ office as a standing US senator from Illinois. As such, he was sworn in to that office, and being under oath, he has sworn to :defend and uphold the Constitution”. Knowing the qualifications to be the POTUS, if he is not a citizen, as some profess, has he not already committed a crime by violating his oath of office and be adjudicated while he is still ‘running’ for seperate office?
I guess arnold Swart. can run next time.or may an illeagal mexican.And tony, this is for you. I am arepublican voting for mccain and I nor my family are trash.but if you hate the people that are voting the way I am,I suggest you have a check up with a shrink.People who hate are the ones that do not belong in our world.You are either,to young to vote,don`t know how,or maybe your just a black rapper from the getto on crack.
Voters:
Do you believe Barack Obama’s birth certificate is real? If you look at the details of the lawsuit, a copy is with this email, there is some real doubt about where he was born. Read it!
When you are finished, go to the website below (or just google his birth certificate) and READ THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE CAREFULLY. In a box where his certificate states “Fathers Race,” it states AFRICAN. What is wrong with this wording? Think about it. In 1961, we were not POLITICALLY CORRECT. I challenge someone out there to produce another birth certificate from Hawaii, from 1961 or before, for a child with a black parent. See if it says whether the father’s race is AFRICAN, or does it say NEGRO, which was the accepted term at the time. IF OTHER HAWAIIN BIRTH CERTIFICATES STATE ANYTHING BUT AFRICAN, IS THIS A FAKE? Forward this on until we find someone born in Hawaii with black father or mother, and let’s see what Hawaii birth records really look like!
A citizen doesn’t have legal ’standing’ to require the courts to uphold the U.S. Constitution? Senator Obama has not produced a valid birth certificate, which further supports the credibility of the evidence Mr. Berg has uncovered. Rather than put the issue to rest by simply producing a proper birth certificate and addressing the other disqualifying issues raised by Mr. Berg, Senator Obama and the DNC, instead bet the farm on being able to receive a sympathetic court ruling based on a subjective legal technicality to avoid having to produce possibly nonexistent documents to prove he is a U.S. citizen.
The truth is that Senator Obama may never have been properly vetted and in fact may not be eligible to serve as either a U.S. Senator or President of the United States. Every veteran, including myself, swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Senator Obama and the DNC lawyers, as well as the judge who dismissed this case despite it’s seminal importance to the upcoming national election, all took a similar oath. However rather than upholding their sacred oath and doing their sworn duty to support and defend the U.S. Constitution, they instead acted to dismiss a citizens’ very well substantiated valid concern for Constitutional eligibility, by asserting Mr. Berg has no ’standing’ with the court. This is especially egregious considering the sad irony that Mr. Berg, who along with being a U.S. citizen endowed with unalienable rights and liberty like every other, had for eight years served as Deputy Attorney General for Pennsylvania where he protected our Constitutional rights while enforcing the law.
Every U.S. citizen has a right as well as the civic duty and moral obligation to require proof of eligibility from a candidate before an election, and failing voluntary cooperation by that candidate, to enlist the help of the government in obtaining that proof well in advance of an election. Instead of being helped, Mr. Berg is being dismissed; his voice as well as those of millions of Americans who support his efforts both in patriotic principle and spirit, was simply summarily silenced. As citizens of the United States of America, a Constitutional Republic, we each have ’standing’ in demanding that our elected officials be legal citizens like us. We the people, as United States citizens either individually or collectively, do have a right to demand the truth regarding Senator Obama’s suspiciously undocumented claim of U.S. citizenship with respect to his eligibility as required by nothing less than the full weight, measure and force of the United States Constitution. Proof that any of us are required to provide to hold any Federal or State government job, as well as many private sector ones.
Why should Senator Obama be excused? Why would Senator Obama and the DNC so vehemently resist having to provide the same legal proof that each of us as a U.S. citizen, has to provide unless he simply can not, because Mr. Berg is correct that in fact Senator Obama is not legally a citizen of the United States of America?
Is it not clear to everyone. This is a terrorist attack on the constitution of the United States.
If we just disregard Obama as the subject of the lawsuit for a second, this ruling simply states that citizens, individually, or as a group lack legal standing to question any Presidential candidate’s eligibility before the Court. Also according to this ruling, Congress is the only entity that can decide who has standing, and they haven’t done so, yet. So technically, NO ONE has legal standing.
If nothing changes, this ruling would mean that Arnold Schwarzanegger, who was born in Austria to parents who were Austrian citizens, could run for President in 2012, even though he is CLEARLY not a natural born citizen of the United States, and there’s not one single person in this country with the legal standing to question his eligibility. The Governator can be elected and can become POTUS because no one has any legal standing to question his eligibility before the courts.
I think Berg has a legitimate appeal arguing that the 1st Amendment guarantees an individual right to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances. I would think a serious violation of the Constitution such as a Constitutionally ineligible President constitutes a legitimate grievance. Since his right to Petition the courts to Redress his Constitutional Grievances is Constitutionally guaranteed, the courts erred by claiming that he lacks legal standing to petition (sue). In that error, Judge Surrick effectively violated Berg’s 1st Amendment petition rights.
Hopefully that would be enough for the SCOTUS to send the case back to Federal District court instructing them to rule on the facts and merits of the case (or lack thereof).
I’m not holding out much hope for that, though. The courts have shown themselves to be as corrupt as the Executive and Legislative branches in their willingness to ignore the Constitution any time they feel like it.