You may recall page13news sharing this video regarding Philip Berg's case against Barack Obama and the legitimacy of his candidacy for president based on the fact that Obama has yet to prove he is a natural-born citizen of the United States - which is required by the constitution.
The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court and Justice Souter, though not calling for Obama to produce the proof yet, has told him to respond to the charge. The docket (08-570) has been filed and Obama must respond by December 1st.
For further information, see Philip Berg's website.
November 16, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Post page13news to Facebook
12 comments:
This is breathtaking stuff. And I think that this is the only way this issue could have been resolved properly, that is, after the general election. Otherwise, Democrats would have just said "See, they can't beat us on the issues so they have to try technicalities." It seems that Obama is desparate to not reveal his original birth certificate, and from what I've been reading everywhere its probably because it says on it that he was born in Kenya, and registered in Hawaii making him an unconstitutional candidate for POTUS and therefore disqualifying him. Joe Biden would then become President. I wonder what african-american he'll pick for VP? Jeez, what a sleaze Obama is.
This is for REAL. The election is NOT OVER. IF Obama is ineligible because he is not a natural born U.S. citizen then the Supreme Court could decide who will be President OR the Electoral College could reject Obama as a growing list of potential electors are joining a lawsuit demanding proof of birth. Instead of talking let's do something.
Take action here: http://peoplespassions.org/index.html
It's EASY. Just click and send emails to Reps. then send letters/emails to Electors asking them to defend the U.S. Constitution and demand Obama provide birth certificate or step down from Presidency. Every email and letter counts! Please help.
Write To U.S. Supreme Court Justices Regarding Obama Birth Certificate here: http://libertynjustice.wordpress.com/
FOR PROOF look here: http://peoplespassions.org/documents/The_Problem_with_a_birth_place.htm
and here:
LISTEN TO AUDIO of Kenya Grandmother stating that Obama born in Mombassa Kenya: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlFc4wCpvSo
People in Kenya know something that Americans don't: Obama born in Kenya!
VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl1K94ALlTA
More than a half-dozen legal challenges have been filed in federal and state courts demanding President-elect Barack Obama's decertification from ballots or seeking to halt elector meetings, claiming he has failed to prove his U.S. citizenship status. WND is tracking the progress of many cases across the U.S., including the following: OH, CT, WA, NJ, PA, GA, Hawaii
Read full article: http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80928
C'mon Ed.
And to the rest of you, I have just one question: why do you think Obama has played this the way he has?
Why has he played it at all?
Why not just produce the document and have the issue die?
He produced the document a long time ago when this crap first started. The Republicans are just so desparate, they refuse to accept it. Get over it! Move on. Plan for 2012. You didn't win this time. (We got over the hanging chads...)
-- CLDem
Here's the deal:
There's a broad consensus even in the "elite media" that social media vehicles - blogs in particular - are beginning to have a huge impact on elections. Rumors and fact get spun around in this relatively new medium without the benefit of ethical boundaries, apart from the ones that some authors choose to exercise. (That's not a jab at you Ed; I read your blog because you're not unreasonable and you have good ideas.)
But by delaying and playing around with the COLB and birth certificate, the Obama team gave hardcore bloggers something to chase; something that is also not as ambiguous as relationships or policy. They basically fed this "controversy" so that the right would fret and spend time and discuss this dead issue all the way through this election.
Do a search on this topic and literally thousands on hits come up, mostly from established right-leaning blogs and oragnizations, that would have had a bigger impact on this election had they decided not to concentrate their efforts on this issue.
So it's a smart play really. He's doing nothing illegal, and I'm sure he'll continue pressing this all they way into January. And when he does deliver the original to SCOTUS, nop one besides the justices will ever touch the document.
So now I'll end with a question. Who thinks the "natural-born" part of the law is really relevant, and why? I know it is the law, but why does it matter, really?
For anonymous #2:
1. If he produced the documentation "a long time ago", why has the SCOTUS ordered the defendant to produce it by December 1?
2. Yeah the republicans refuse to accept it and should just "get over it." I suppose the same could be said of the Plaintiff in the case, a Democrat!
Oh SNAP!
Wow. Can't believe you are still in denial. I would have thought you would have moved on to anger by now.
Ok. So why are we not believing the Hawaiian officials who have verified the birth certificate?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
And by the way, the Supreme Court has not "ordered Obama to produce his birth certificate." Since Berg appealed being thrown out by the lower court by filing a writ with the supremes, Obama can respond to the writ. The deadline for the response is Dec. 1st.
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm
sorry to disappoint - where's the fact checking around here?
"The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court and Justice Souter, though not calling for Obama to produce the proof yet, has told him to respond to the charge (or writ, as our latest esteemed commenter noted it was called, is the opinion of Philip Berg submitted to the court challenging Obama's qualifications). The docket (08-570) has been filed and Obama must respond by December 1st."
The above are from my original comments (writ description added), so I'm not sure what our latest anonymous commentor is whining about.
Secondly, the snopes link states...
"Also in October 2008, Hawaiian officials reported that they had personally verified the existence of Barack Obama's original birth certificate: "
Which means what it says, they verified it's existance, NOT that he was born there. Below the comment it states...
"She (the Hawaiin Health Dept Director) says state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest in it."
So how can it be verified if it hasn't been released yet? Simply because she says so, is that your proof?
The lower court through out Berg's request to see the document because they said he didn't have standing (or tangible interest).
Now, counselor, it is before the Supreme Court on appeal because he believes he does, as an American citizen, have standing. And Obama has until Dec 1st to respond to Berg's writ regarding his qualifications.
They are the facts (checked and all), as pointed out in my original post.
One last thing, Mr. Barbiero (Vice Chair of ARDC), how much did you pay for that law degree? Is this how you argue cases... with Snopes links?
Would you expect anything less from an ambulance chaser?
Now you're moving on to anger, thats progress at least.
Seriously, the snopes thing is not evidence, Ed - it is an actual question - as in - ok, now why are we supposed to not believe the officials - do you think this a conspiracy that involves the local officials?
The supreme court thing is directed at the "oh snap" guy - don't be so sensitive Ed. (Though, you did decide not to correct the snap guy, so I suppose it could be directed at you after all). Anyway, since we are chatting - what did you think of the Matthews censure? I noticed you have been silent on the subject?
No anger here Mike. But thanks for taking the typical "just calm down" approach. Leftist debating tactic 101 - whenever a conservative exposes your argument, accuse him/her of being angry.
I'm just making a counter-point.
I have no idea how deep this goes or who is involved. I was reading what you pointed me to and thought it proved nothing.
I am stunned however to see how such a simple matter can become so complicated. Likewise, it amazes me how many people want to say the matter is settled, when it clearly isn't.
I don't need to correct every little comment posted here, but I will when they attempt to poke holes in my argument.
If you intended to correct someone else, make that clear.
Post a Comment