Reply With Quote
Berg is an idiot...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=76933
The man suing Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee for proof of Obama's American citizenship is outraged that his own party – rather than just providing the birth certificate he seeks – would step in to silence him by filing a motion to dismiss his lawsuit.
As WND reported, prominent Pennsylvania Democrat and attorney Philip J. Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court two months ago claiming Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen and therefore not eligible to be elected president. Berg has since challenged Obama publicly that if the candidate will simply produce authorized proof of citizenship, he'll drop the suit.
Berg told WND the longer the DNC tries to ignore his lawsuit or make it go away – instead of just providing the do ents – the more convinced he is that his accusations are correct.
Despite assertions by the Washington Post, FactChecker.org and other organizations that Obama has produced a certified Hawaiian birth certificate, Berg told WND he remains "99.99 percent sure" that the certificate is a fake and he wants a court, not a website, to determine its validity.
Earlier last week, lawyers for Obama and the DNC filed a joint motion to dismiss Berg's lawsuit. The fact that the DNC joined in the dismissal request has Berg fuming, believing his party's leaders have ignored his pleas for proof in order to favor their chosen candidate over a rank-and-file cons uent.
"I think it's outrageous," Berg said. "The Democratic National Committee should be ensuring the Democratic Party and the public that they have a qualified candidate up there. To file a joint motion is like they're in cahoots.
"Since then, I have asked by way of press release that Howard Dean resign, because (the DNC members) are not fulfilling their duties," Berg said.
"The DNC has a responsibility to all Democrats in this country to make sure that all of their candidates are properly vetted and properly qualified," Berg added. "I think it's really an outrage to the 18-plus million people who voted for Obama and the people who donated more than $425 million to him under false pretenses."
Berg is an idiot...
Can you also post an article about this story from the Obama/DNC point of view? Thanks!
If it were true Berg would not be alive.
But maybe Obama is one of these merciful rulers.
would be ok for him to be dead if it was true?
If proven within the next 4 years, it would no doubt cause a civil war.
I heard Berg make his case the other day. The dude is passionate and not going anywhere.
The main thing I get out of this speculation is that people simply do not trust the media to do their job anymore.
Last edited by Anti.Hero; 10-25-2008 at 12:10 AM.
Those pesky courts. Always silencing frivolous lawsuits.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=76933
I think they left something out.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=73214
Oops. There goes that talking point.
Are you implying that they should stop trying to force a legal standard that would allow any American citizen to demand to masturbate all over the original do entation of any political figure?
You're from one of those anti-American parts of the country, aren't you?
I believe I live in an anti-American enclave.
Or maybe it's a ghetto.
Whatever, whottt says I hate America and he's ignoring me. What more proof do you need?
You mean republicans don't trust the media ,unless of course it's an article bashing Obama. I am so ing tired of you righties moaning and whining about the media..
I'm an anti-American hiding out in a pro-American state.
Here's hoping that Obama can pull off an upset and only lose Utah by 15-20 points.
P.S.- I was kind of hoping McCain would pick Romney, just so I could see them win Utah by 60 points.
Utah Republican primary results:
Mitt Romney: ........ 255,218 ........ 90%
John McCain: ........ 15,264 ....... 5%
Ron Paul: ................. 8,295 .......... 3%
Mike Huckabee: ....... 4,054 .......... 1%
Rudy Giuliani: ............ 928 ......... 0%
His mom is a US citizen. That's all the proof of citizenship anyone who passed grammar school civics needs.
It doesn't matter where on the globe you are born, or when, or by what means, if one of your parents is a US citizen, YOU are a US citizen. I don't care if he was born in Hawaiii or Havana and they recorded the birth on a napkin with a ball point pen.
[waiting for idiot Berg to sue and demand a DNA test]
Joe s was argueing this point last week. A caller called up and said a copy of the birth certificate was on Obama's website. He went off, and said that was a JPEG and a fake. WTF.
Aren't most pics a JPEG-authentic or otherwise??? what a dumb .
That is not true. It must be on a US military base, territory, or something like that. I'm not sure of the details, but I do know your blanket statement is FALSE.
100% of the Amerasian oprhans in Asia would disagree with you.
So where is the proof he was born anywhere else?
you are either US citizen by birth or by blood. If you are born on any US territory you are a US citizen by birth. If either of your parents are US citizens you are a citizen by blood.
END OF THE ING STORY.
I believe that both parents were supposed to be US citizens at the time Obama was born.
Not that it matters, since there is no proof he was born anywhere else.
The rules are actually really messy as the whole "natural born" thing goes. According to the Cons ution to be eligible to hold the office of President or VP you have to be a "natural born" citizen, or a citizen of the US at the time of the signing of the Cons ution. The Cons ution does not give any definition for the "natural born" status (one presumes because they all knew what they meant when they said it and did not envision the do ent lasting as long as it has).
However. Sec 8, Art 1 of the Cons ution gives congress the power to define and establish rules of naturalization for US citizenship. It has been accepted that this grants congress the right to define "natural born" for the simple fact that in order to establish whether one needs to be naturalized, you must first establish whether or not they are already naturally born.
The Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795 established that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens." There is no requirement for it to be on a military base or other type of territory. Court cases have since established that simply being born on a diplomatic or military base to foreign parents does not grant a person US citizenship. This is largely to avoid pregnant women in foreign countries from attempting to give birth on US bases, etc, to gain citizenship for their children. Under the naturalization acts there is some sort of time requirement for residing in the US to be considered "natural born," but that time requirement has changed over time and I'm not sure off hand what the current requirement is.
The courts have regularly ruled against cases where one parent was a citizen and one wasn't in cases of children born outside US borders.
I am unsure if BO's father was a citizen. He would have been eligible for residential status after his marriages. I do not believe permanent residential status is the same as citizenship and I do not know what the requirements were like in the 1960s.
As far as I know, only BO's mother is a US citizen. If BO were born on foreign soil, having only one parent be a US citizen would make it tricky and would be an issue for the counts (who, as I said before, have traditionally not been very favorable).
However, since he was born in Hawaii after 1959, it's a moot point.
Being as he has had to prove citizenship to get a passport there is a basis for the US government establishing him as a citizen. Someone accusing him of not being a citizen would therefore have to: a) have the authority to bring the case; and b) be able to meet basic criteria to show that they can meet the burden of proof to present the case.
To the best of my understanding, the DOJ or the Congress are the only people who have standing to bring such a suit and I don't think either of them have the proof to meet the basic criteria to bring the case. Certainly nothing I've seen demonstrates such.
Last edited by MaryAnnKilledGinger; 10-26-2008 at 01:11 AM.
The 14 amendment also makes things even more confusing, IIRC. That said, I agree this is a frivolous lawsuit from an attention .
Oh, so I guess you're one of those hippie, kumbaya-singing, Christ-denying, wealth redistributing, leftists who doesn't believe that candidates need to prove their citizenship (or that they are NOT the Anti-Christ) to each individual citizen. What's next Yoko? Are you going to start allowing judges to legislate from the bench by dismissing claims just because they don't comport with the "laws" or with civil procedure?
Typical Marxist.
Another DNC legal attack
McCain got $7 million in excess donations: DNC
Sat Oct 25, 2008 2:39pm EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - John McCain received nearly $7 million in 6,652 donations that exceeded contribution limits while seeking the Republican presidential nomination, the Democratic National Committee said on Saturday.
The DNC listed the figure in a complaint it said it will file on Monday with the Federal Election Commission. The Republican National Committee filed a similar complaint on October 5, alleging Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama had not done enough to weed out illegal contributions.
In a copy of the DNC posted on the Internet, the DNC said on Saturday it compiled its information by examining donations recorded on McCain's campaign Web site.
"Analysis of the information ... shows that the McCain Campaign has received 6,653 contributions each of which was at least $1,000 in excess of the applicable $2,300 limit to the primary campaign," the DNC complaint said.
"Nineteen individuals contributed more then $10,000 each to the McCain Campaign -- more than four times the limit," said the do ent. It said the donations included one person who gave $56,047 and overall totaled "nearly $7 million."
The complaint asked the election commission to investigate the matter. It also accuses the McCain campaign of accepting donations without getting the donors' names and addresses.
A spokesman for the McCain campaign was not immediately available for comment. On its Web site, the New York Times political blog quoted McCain spokesman Brain Rogers as saying the DNC complaint was a publicity stunt to distract attention from Obama's "shady fund-raising practices."
(Reporting by Charles Abbott, editing by Anthony Boadle)
http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USTRE49O1UJ20081025.
Wrong. Citizenship can be granted, and automatically. It doesn't meet the cons utional conditions to be qualified for president unless in a US territory or military base, etc. The cons ution required "Native Born." Bases, embassies, etc. are deemed USA soil. I actually question if McCain is qualified by birth for president however. My youngest daughter was born a USA citizen in Stuttgart, Germany at a military hospital. They told me she could never run for president. I guess maybe they could have been wrong. McCain was born in Panama.
His father was just a visiting student. Laws were change long after the Viet Nam war. It was first widely noted during the Korean War that children of Americans had no legal standings as citizens. Took a long time to change, but it was.
That's why you don't see me pursuing this point. I have no credible evidence he isn't born in Hawaii. I would like to see the evidence and I wish that he would open up records to us. How loud did liberals cry for president Bush to open his records? Where's the outcry from liberals now?
Can we have some consistency rather than hypocrisy please?
Everyone that complained about president Bush's records, please raise your hands.
Yeah I wanna see that. Raise 'em, I wanna send y'all on a huntin' trip with ol' . Heh-heh.
it
prove he was born in the usa
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
