The October Surprise

[No_Fear]

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court

 

 

The order and memorandum came down at approximately 6:15 p.m. on Friday. Philip Berg's lawsuit challenging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States had been dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing.

 

Surrick, it seemed, was not satisfied with the nature of evidence provided by Berg to support his allegations.

 

Various accounts, details and ambiguities from Obama’s childhood form the basis of Plaintiff’s allegation that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States. To support his contention, Plaintiff cites sources as varied as the Rainbow Edition News Letter … and the television news tabloid Inside Edition. These sources and others lead Plaintiff to conclude that Obama is either a citizen of his father’s native Kenya, by birth there or through operation of U.S. law; or that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia by relinquishing his prior citizenship (American or Kenyan) when he moved there with his mother in 1967. Either way, in Plaintiff’s opinion, Obama does not have the requisite qualifications for the Presidency that the Natural Born Citizen Clause mandates. The Amended Complaint alleges that Obama has actively covered up this information and that the other named Defendants are complicit in Obama’s cover-up.

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.

 

As it were, much of Berg’s basis for injury-in-fact could be considered threatened injury–he felt that the country was at risk for “voter disenfranchisement” and that America was certainly headed for a “constitutional crisis”—and, while threatened injury can certainly be injury enough to satisfy the injury-in-fact element, such satisfaction depends upon the threat being perceived by the judge as being not too creative, speculative or remote.

 

When it came to Philip Berg’s personal stake in the matter at hand, Surrick compared his action with those of Fred Hollander—the man who, earlier this year, sued Sen. John McCain in New Hampshire on grounds that, born in the Panama Canal Zone, he was not a natural born citizen—and held that Berg’s stake “is no greater and his status no more differentiated than that of millions of other voters.” The harm cited by Berg, Surrick wrote, “is too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.”

 

So, who does have standing? 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.

Judge the 34-page memorandum. In one such instance, Surrick noted that Berg had misinterpreted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in asking the court to permit him to amend his complaint. The first amended complaint was deemed admitted by Judge Surrick on grounds that, under FRCP 15(a), a party can amend once so long as it’s done before being served with a responsive pleading and that [just as I had not-so-confidently suggested] the motion to dismiss filed on Sept. 24 by Obama and the DNC was not a responsive pleading. Because Berg perceived the motion to dismiss as a responsive pleading and was waiting on the court to grant or deny the motion for leave to amend, he did not serve the additional defendants added in the amended complaint. This, too, was noted by Surrick.

 

Berg’s attempts to distinguish his own case from Hollander were deemed by Surrick to be “[h]is most reasonable arguments,” but his arguments citing statutory authority were said by the judge to be a venture “into the unreasonable” and were “frivolous and not worthy of discussion.” All in all, the judge wrote, it was the satisfaction of the injury-in-fact requirement which was the problem. Berg’s harm was simply too intangible.

 

…regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.

 

Intangible or not, Berg said, we have a case where "an American citizen is asking questions of a presidential candidate's eligibility to even hold that office in the first place, and the candidate is ducking and dodging questions through legal procedure."

 

In fact, the motion to dismiss and motion for protective order filed by Barack Obama and the DNC were not only proper but also an expected maneuver by the defense attorneys. The very idea behind such motions is to foster the adjudication of the matter with minimal damage to the named defendants, and both are measures used more often than not. Still, Berg believes there is more to it.

 

"While the procedural evasions may be proper," Berg said, "it only makes me believe more that we were correct in the first place, that Obama does not have the documentation we've requested."

 

While the evidence presented by Berg was largely circumstantial, the attorney says that he is learning more about this narrative--and about the Democratic Party nominee for president--with each passing day. For example, regardless of whether it could be attached to the proceeding as it goes through the appellate process, Berg said, he is in possession of a native-language audiotape of Sarah Obama, Barack Obama's paternal grandmother, stating on the day of the last presidential debate that her famous grandson was indeed born in Kenya, and that she was present in the hospital for his birth.

 

"The tape is in the native language there," Berg said. "I will release it as soon as translation is confirmed by affidavit, and we are waiting on affidavits from contacts over here and in Kenya."

 

Berg, nonetheless, is disappointed by Surrick's decision and will issue a press release today detailing his plans to appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court.

 

"This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution," Berg said. "If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States--the most powerful man in the entire world--is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?"

[Edstock]

"If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States--the most powerful man in the entire world--is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?"

Who cares? If Marvin the Martian could get the US out of its mess, I'd vote for him, no matter what his origins.

 

Your buddies have totally screwed the system. The thievery is mind-boggling. The golden parachutes of the Lehman gang and the rest are so big, they are 3 TIMES the amount that was lost in the bankruptcies — all that money siphoned off to line their pockets. 300 billion to the rich, and your 401k goes to the dumpster, for dumpster-diving, a new American pastime.

 

And the GOP thinks this is just fine. Your buddy wants to give the top 1% a perpetual tax break.

 

GOP's policies are bankrupt. We all know this. They don't have anything to offer, so why not try to quibble about qualifications?

 

Drill, baby drill. That's the cure-all for the hard-of-thinking.

[fmccap]

GOP's policies are bankrupt. We all know this. They don't have anything to offer, so why not try to quibble about qualifications?

As are the Dem's policies and programs.

 

Talking about the "hard of thinking", when will people realize that we are being screwed by both sides and demand a change???

[sprinter]

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court

 

 

The order and memorandum came down at approximately 6:15 p.m. on Friday. Philip Berg's lawsuit challenging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States had been dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing.

 

Surrick, it seemed, was not satisfied with the nature of evidence provided by Berg to support his allegations.

 

Various accounts, details and ambiguities from Obama’s childhood form the basis of Plaintiff’s allegation that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States. To support his contention, Plaintiff cites sources as varied as the Rainbow Edition News Letter … and the television news tabloid Inside Edition. These sources and others lead Plaintiff to conclude that Obama is either a citizen of his father’s native Kenya, by birth there or through operation of U.S. law; or that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia by relinquishing his prior citizenship (American or Kenyan) when he moved there with his mother in 1967. Either way, in Plaintiff’s opinion, Obama does not have the requisite qualifications for the Presidency that the Natural Born Citizen Clause mandates. The Amended Complaint alleges that Obama has actively covered up this information and that the other named Defendants are complicit in Obama’s cover-up.

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.

 

As it were, much of Berg’s basis for injury-in-fact could be considered threatened injury–he felt that the country was at risk for “voter disenfranchisement” and that America was certainly headed for a “constitutional crisis”—and, while threatened injury can certainly be injury enough to satisfy the injury-in-fact element, such satisfaction depends upon the threat being perceived by the judge as being not too creative, speculative or remote.

 

When it came to Philip Berg’s personal stake in the matter at hand, Surrick compared his action with those of Fred Hollander—the man who, earlier this year, sued Sen. John McCain in New Hampshire on grounds that, born in the Panama Canal Zone, he was not a natural born citizen—and held that Berg’s stake “is no greater and his status no more differentiated than that of millions of other voters.” The harm cited by Berg, Surrick wrote, “is too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.”

 

So, who does have standing? 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.

Judge the 34-page memorandum. In one such instance, Surrick noted that Berg had misinterpreted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in asking the court to permit him to amend his complaint. The first amended complaint was deemed admitted by Judge Surrick on grounds that, under FRCP 15(a), a party can amend once so long as it’s done before being served with a responsive pleading and that [just as I had not-so-confidently suggested] the motion to dismiss filed on Sept. 24 by Obama and the DNC was not a responsive pleading. Because Berg perceived the motion to dismiss as a responsive pleading and was waiting on the court to grant or deny the motion for leave to amend, he did not serve the additional defendants added in the amended complaint. This, too, was noted by Surrick.

 

Berg’s attempts to distinguish his own case from Hollander were deemed by Surrick to be “[h]is most reasonable arguments,” but his arguments citing statutory authority were said by the judge to be a venture “into the unreasonable” and were “frivolous and not worthy of discussion.” All in all, the judge wrote, it was the satisfaction of the injury-in-fact requirement which was the problem. Berg’s harm was simply too intangible.

 

…regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.

 

Intangible or not, Berg said, we have a case where "an American citizen is asking questions of a presidential candidate's eligibility to even hold that office in the first place, and the candidate is ducking and dodging questions through legal procedure."

 

In fact, the motion to dismiss and motion for protective order filed by Barack Obama and the DNC were not only proper but also an expected maneuver by the defense attorneys. The very idea behind such motions is to foster the adjudication of the matter with minimal damage to the named defendants, and both are measures used more often than not. Still, Berg believes there is more to it.

 

"While the procedural evasions may be proper," Berg said, "it only makes me believe more that we were correct in the first place, that Obama does not have the documentation we've requested."

 

While the evidence presented by Berg was largely circumstantial, the attorney says that he is learning more about this narrative--and about the Democratic Party nominee for president--with each passing day. For example, regardless of whether it could be attached to the proceeding as it goes through the appellate process, Berg said, he is in possession of a native-language audiotape of Sarah Obama, Barack Obama's paternal grandmother, stating on the day of the last presidential debate that her famous grandson was indeed born in Kenya, and that she was present in the hospital for his birth.

 

"The tape is in the native language there," Berg said. "I will release it as soon as translation is confirmed by affidavit, and we are waiting on affidavits from contacts over here and in Kenya."

 

Berg, nonetheless, is disappointed by Surrick's decision and will issue a press release today detailing his plans to appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court.

 

"This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution," Berg said. "If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States--the most powerful man in the entire world--is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?"

 

 

This is just another case of throwing the Constitution out the window. Does it take a class action suit for this judge to understand? Sure my name nor several other millions were not on the suit so the judge asserts that only Berg is the only one being deprived of their rights? I guess this is paving the way for Arnold in ’12. Might as well get a real blood line Brown Shirt Nazi for president.

[Edstock]

This is just another case of throwing the Constitution out the window. Does it take a class action suit for this judge to understand? Sure my name nor several other millions were not on the suit so the judge asserts that only Berg is the only one being deprived of their rights? I guess this is paving the way for Arnold in ’12. Might as well get a real blood line Brown Shirt Nazi for president.

You sure are desperate, aren't you? Imagine that you are so frightened of change that you and others resort to this kind of folderol.

 

"I will release it as soon as translation is confirmed by affidavit, and we are waiting on affidavits from contacts over here and in Kenya."

As soon as? Here we have could be, would be, should be, might be?

 

Please, try and think about what Americans have to do to fix the mess your buddies created, instead of waiting on affidavits from dubious sources.

[sprinter]

You sure are desperate, aren't you? Imagine that you are so frightened of change that you and others resort to this kind of folderol.

 

"I will release it as soon as translation is confirmed by affidavit, and we are waiting on affidavits from contacts over here and in Kenya."

As soon as? Here we have could be, would be, should be, might be?

 

Please, try and think about what Americans have to do to fix the mess your buddies created, instead of waiting on affidavits from dubious sources.

 

Dude, my "buddies" didn't get us in this mess. And I can guarantee that 4 years under Obama will be just as bad if not worse.

 

Have you read the news articles how Biden and others are saying Obama will have to face a test of resilience within his first six months of presidency? There will be some big event that is going to happen and the insiders of DC know it. My guess is a certain country will attack Iran. Which in turn will draw the US into that battle by our perceived choice. This event will probably occur no matter who is elected. However the outcome could be different. For instance if Ron Paul was our president, this hundred year war that Bush has created would come to an end.

 

You might want to read some of the Grand Chessboard (1997) by Zbigniew Brzezinski. Then check his relevance to the Obama campaign.

 

 

"... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv)

 

"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)

 

Sounds like Zbig wants to start WWIII with the hope that the US will emerge as the lone superpower to rule the world.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Dude, my "buddies" didn't get us in this mess. And I can guarantee that 4 years under Obama will be just as bad if not worse.

 

Have you read the news articles how Biden and others are saying Obama will have to face a test of resilience within his first six months of presidency? There will be some big event that is going to happen and the insiders of DC know it. My guess is a certain country will attack Iran. Which in turn will draw the US into that battle by our perceived choice. This event will probably occur no matter who is elected. However the outcome could be different. For instance if Ron Paul was our president, this hundred year war that Bush has created would come to an end.

 

You might want to read some of the Grand Chessboard (1997) by Zbigniew Brzezinski. Then check his relevance to the Obama campaign.

 

 

 

 

Sounds like Zbig wants to start WWIII with the hope that the US will emerge as the lone superpower to rule the world.

 

1997 was 11 years ago. I don't know many people who would have the same opinions today based on what they knew 11 years ago.

[sprinter]

1997 was 11 years ago. I don't know many people who would have the same opinions today based on what they knew 11 years ago.

 

 

You just don't get it, do you?

[sprinter]

Stop the Obama Constitutional Crisis

 

Sign the Petition

 

http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutiona...ification/1244/

[Mark B. Morrow]

You just don't get it, do you?

 

Snappy comeback. Berg is a well known nutjob. The fact that he has the backing of Michael Savage (nee Weiner) only makes the case against him stronger.

[Ron W.]

Sign the Petition [/size]

 

Already did, I must be one of those right wing wackos.

[Bored of Pisteon]

Snappy comeback. Berg is a well known nutjob. The fact that he has the backing of Michael Savage (nee Weiner) only makes the case against him stronger.

 

Then why does his website (www.obamacrimes.com) web-site has over 71,000,000 hits on it as of today?

 

Quit being so naive and wake the fuck up!

Edited October 28, 2008 by Bored of Pisteon

[Deanh]

Then why does his website (www.obamacrimes.com) web-site has over 71,000,000 hits on it as of today?

 

Quit being so naive and wake the fuck up!

71,000,000?????? lot of lazy Republicans and conspiracists out there me's think.....never underestimate human curiousity Pisteon, or the ability to salivate at sensationalism.....

[Bored of Pisteon]

71,000,000?????? lot of lazy Republicans and conspiracists out there me's think.....never underestimate human curiousity Pisteon, or the ability to salivate at sensationalism.....

 

But you're missing the issue! Why isn't this being reported on the national media front?

 

YOU TELL US!

[Deanh]

But you're missing the issue! Why isn't this being reported on the national media front?

 

YOU TELL US!

because the article was probably first printed in the National Enquirer.....get my drift....must admit, this is definitely the most thought provoking, opinionated, intense election I have witnessed....will be interesting to gauge how many more vote this time around.....it truley has brought a bunch out of the woodwork....a fair share whom actually read something into that type of BS article.....but alas people embrace scandal, look at the popularity of maury and jerry Springer for instance.....

Edited October 28, 2008 by Deanh

[Bored of Pisteon]

because the article was probably first printed in the National Enquirer.....get my drift....must admit, this is definitely the most thought provoking, opinionated, intense election I have witnessed....will be interesting to gauge how many more vote this time around.....it truley has brought a bunch out of the woodwork....a fair share whom actually read something into that type of BS article.....but alas people embrace scandal, look at the popularity of maury and jerry Springer for instance.....

 

I'll get back to you on the National Enquirer thing because don't I recall that the John Edwards paternity/out of wedlock baby story was first reported there and not one peep was heard in the national mainstream news media until it was conveinent for them. (He withdrew his candidacy)

 

In fact... I don't recall anything mentioned in the Enquirer anyway!

 

So for you to say that it's frivioulous is quite ignorant on your part.

[Deanh]

I'll get back to you on the National Enquirer thing because don't I recall that the John Edwards paternity/out of wedlock baby story was first reported there and not one peep was heard in the national mainstream news media until it was conveinent for them. (He withdrew his candidacy)

 

In fact... I don't recall anything mentioned in the Enquirer anyway!

 

So for you to say that it's frivioulous is quite ignorant on your part.

lighten up francis...it was a poke at how ludicrous some of the published "agenda" is and has been....get it now? Media has spun absolute CRAP out of control, and the general public FEASTS on scandal even if its true or NOT....personally I dismiss 99% of it....

Edited October 29, 2008 by Deanh

[Len_A]

You just don't get it, do you?

 

What YOU don't get is that your "October Surprise" fizzled. Get over it.

 

Stop the Obama Constitutional Crisis

 

Sign the Petition

 

http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutiona...ification/1244/

The site for right-wing whack-jobs everywhere.

 

Then why does his website (www.obamacrimes.com) web-site has over 71,000,000 hits on it as of today?

 

Quit being so naive and wake the fuck up!

Because there are a lot of curiosity seekers, etc.

 

Who are you to tell any of us to 'wake the fuck up"? The fact is that the majority of voters just don't care. This is a non-issue.

 

But you're missing the issue! Why isn't this being reported on the national media front?

 

YOU TELL US!

Because it's a non-issue. Obama's mother was a natural born U.S. citizen. Isn't the child of a U.S. citizen automatically a U.S. citizen regardless of where they were born? That is the common conception.

[Deanh]

What YOU don't get is that your "October Surprise" fizzled. Get over it.

 

 

The site for right-wing whack-jobs everywhere.

 

Because there are a lot of curiosity seekers, etc.

 

Who are you to tell any of us to 'wake the fuck up"? The fact is that the majority of voters just don't care. This is a non-issue.

 

Because it's a non-issue. Obama's mother was a natural born U.S. citizen. Isn't the child of a U.S. citizen automatically a U.S. citizen regardless of where they were born? That is the common conception.

thankyou Len...but it is amazing how easily led some are by certain sensational press releases....someone should make the Media ACCOUNTABLE for a majority of their BS.

[Bored of Pisteon]

What YOU don't get is that your "October Surprise" fizzled. Get over it.

 

 

The site for right-wing whack-jobs everywhere.

 

Because there are a lot of curiosity seekers, etc.

 

Who are you to tell any of us to 'wake the fuck up"? The fact is that the majority of voters just don't care. This is a non-issue.

 

Because it's a non-issue. Obama's mother was a natural born U.S. citizen. Isn't the child of a U.S. citizen automatically a U.S. citizen regardless of where they were born? That is the common conception.

 

A non-issue? What about that birth certificate that is on his web-site? Yes...The same one that doesn't list a birth weight or size (in inches) as all birth certificates do. And don't tell me that's an original 1961 birth certificate because that's a bunch of bullshit all in itself. Sure looks like a more modernized document to me just by looking at the style of the paper and the letter type. It's not even notarized where it was issued! It even looks like a vehicle title document issued by the Secretary of State's office!

WHAT THE FUCK?

 

By the way... If a child was born in a foreign country he is not a "natural-born" U.S. Citizen. Plain and simple.

 

And of course the majority of voters don't care because THEY'RE ALL A BUNCH OF STUPID IGNORANT MOTHERFUCKERS! THAT'S WHY. LISTENING TO A MAN PREACH "CHANGE" ALL THE TIME DOESN'T CUT THE MUSTARD AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

 

Let's say Obama get's elected...HE'LL STILL LOSE ANYWAY. Because if this case makes it all the way to the Supreme Court. Guess what... He won't serve one day as President.

Edited October 29, 2008 by Bored of Pisteon

[NickF1011]

A non-issue? What about that birth certificate that is on his web-site? Yes...The same one that doesn't list a birth weight or size (in inches) as all birth certificates do. And don't tell me that's an original 1961 birth certificate because that's a bunch of bullshit all in itself. Sure looks like a more modernized document to me just by looking at the letter type. It's not even notarized!

 

And of course the majority of voters don't care because THEY'RE ALL A BUNCH OF STUPID IGNORANT MOTHERFUCKERS! THAT'S WHY.

 

Does every person you know have their original birth certificate? Of myself and my three brothers, I'm the only one who still has his original birth certificate. My brothers all have re-issues. Guess what? None of them list weight or length and I don't think any of them are notarized either. Does that make them any less valid as legal documents? No.

 

Really, this is straw-grasping at its worst.

[Bored of Pisteon]

Does every person you know have their original birth certificate? Of myself and my three brothers, I'm the only one who still has his original birth certificate. My brothers all have re-issues. Guess what? None of them list weight or length and I don't think any of them are notarized either. Does that make them any less valid as legal documents? No.

 

Really, this is straw-grasping at its worst.

 

That's where I'm trying to get to. Where is the document providing actual proof he was born in a hospital in Hawaii? That's what Mr. Berg is trying to get to...

[Deanh]

Does every person you know have their original birth certificate? Of myself and my three brothers, I'm the only one who still has his original birth certificate. My brothers all have re-issues. Guess what? None of them list weight or length and I don't think any of them are notarized either. Does that make them any less valid as legal documents? No.

 

Really, this is straw-grasping at its worst.

but Nick...it MUST be true because I read it.......

[NickF1011]

That's where I'm trying to get to. Where is the document providing actual proof he was born in a hospital in Hawaii? That's what Mr. Berg is trying to get to...

 

Who cares? His mother is an American citizen. It doesn't matter where the heck he was born. He's a natural-born American citizen. Qualification met for presidency. The rest is irrelevant. I wouldn't bother responding to this ridiculousness if I were Obama either.

[Bored of Pisteon]

Who cares? His mother is an American citizen. It doesn't matter where the heck he was born. He's a natural-born American citizen. Qualification met for presidency. The rest is irrelevant. I wouldn't bother responding to this ridiculousness if I were Obama either.

 

Then if that's the case... What other kind of people are going to run for President in the future? People born in foreign countries that despise the U.S.?