For anyone who thinks this election is important, on either side, this is a must see to believe

(If he does release it, game over. )
For some people it will never BE over. I will give ya a pity comment tho cause I AM nice like that.
That film is a crock of crap just like all the other crocks of crap McCain and HIS Tokyo Rose are peddling to save their pitifully inept campaign from just collapsing from the weight of all the garbage it has carried.
It is becoming VERY obvious to any thinking person just which candidate does NOT have the best interests of this country at heart.
If McCain wins he will have sold his soul for the hollow victory and if he loses he will just be a angry old man that once had some sense of decency and honor.
Either way.........Obama wins!

Obama has already announced the October surprise. His middle name is really Steve.

"That film is a crock of crap"
Doesn't matter Ape, the Law suite is not.

I guess we will see eventually.

I kind of doubt if there is anything to this, but some questions seem viable, and why not end it all by releasing them to the judge at least? I've been loosely following this, and read the legal papers. One thing that interested me is this "vault copy" of birth certificate thing mentioned in the legal papers. When I needed clearance for where I worked, I had a pretty copy of one, similar to what has been shown around the net, but that isn't what they needed. I had to send off for another one that looks completely different. I got me thinking about all this. Then when I read that the democratic party apparently doesn't want to release what they supposedly vetted him with, it made me wonder even more out of interest.
I'm still trying to find out whom/what group actually verifies any candidate with Constitutional requirements to be met, and why those aren't available for the public? How do we know those people are doing thier jobs correctly if not? Why the secrecy?
As of yet, nobody seems to know....

This is news that some of us have been watching from the inception of the Berg Lawsuit in August. Good to see it's still spreading though.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Tailgunner? You'd honestly call yourself that?

Why not butt pirate?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Here's a thought:
For every right-wing nutjob who believes Berg's word is TRUTH....
Let's see them follow through on THIS:

(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania - 01/04/07) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, [Berg is a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania; former candidate for Governor and U.S. Senate; an attorney with offices in Montgomery County, PA and an active practice in Philadelphia, PA, who prior hereto has filed a RICO lawsuit against Bush and others for the events of 9/11 and plans to re-file shortly] announced today that he was issuing a call for world leaders to arrest and try Bush and Cheney for the global crimes of 9/11/01.

Philip J. Berg, Esquire stated in a letter to the nations throughout the world:

"It is time for the nations of the world to come forth and take the leadership because of the failure of the United States Government and the States where crimes were committed on 09/11/01, where no thorough investigation and indictments occurred, to investigate, arrest and prosecute the people responsible for the murders on 9/11/01, specifically including George W. Bush and Richard Cheney."
"Now, it is time for world leaders to take the lesson learned from Iraq and issue a warrant for the arrest of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney; arrest them; take them to a neutral country; try them for the murder of over 2,800 people from more than 80 countries on 9/11/01 and, when found guilty, sentence them appropriately. Jurisdiction would be proper in any of the more than 80 countries whose citizens were murdered on 9/11."

Ape, you state this like it's news too. Anyone who's followed the Berg case closely also knows who he is, and part of that is that he's a 9-11 truther. So what? He could be wrong on both of these issues, but I find it interesting to see these things investigated. I like to see what investigations bring forth. I know that doesn't interest people who want to believe what they believe. If what you believe is so true, then I would think you'd be all for someone to bring these issues before a judging body that would corroborate what you believe.

This matter is now in the "hands" of the main stream media, I feel, in terms of potentially causing devastating harm to Mr. Obama's bid to win the election. If, and that's a big if, this question is placed before the general public as the matter now stands, either the campaign will produce solid evidence of the candidate's proofs of citizenship, or he will face significant ongoing attention from many sources, most notably the Republican campaign; Or such proof will be provided, and the last best hope for the Repubs will vanish. I believe there are means by which the Repubs can get this somewhere near front and center in the MSM . . . and as time winds down, they will be forced to make a concerted effort to do so.

The "risk" of appearing to be "grasping at straws", should the candidate's birth certificate be produced and verified by qualified experts, is fast becoming immaterial. Therefor, logically speaking, either the Repubs know Mr. Obama has proof, and there is no reason to press the issue until right before the actual day of the election, when there would not be time to get the convincing evidence Mr. Obama is qualified in this regard before the voters; Or, they are not sure what is really going on; Or, they know this is the "real deal".

Logically speaking, Mr. Obama knows whether or not he can produce legitimate documentation to prove his status as a legally qualified holder of that office. Therefor, he either knows he can, as is not doing so in order to "bait" the Repubs into challenging this seriously, at which point he can simply produce the evidence and make this (and therefor the whole range of "issues" they have raised about his past) appear like "negative campaign" non-sense; Or . . . he is not qualified to be President. If the former is true, there remains little reason to continue waiting, since the logic of doing so collapses as the day of election draws near, and the time needed to verify the documents authoritatively vanishes. The "trap" he is hypothetically setting, simply has no value if it cannot be "sprung" effectively by "proving" his case, before that day arrives.

Therefore, as each day passes, without the "proof" being presented, the likelihood that Mr. Obama is about to be undone, increases, to my mind. This election is not over, by any means, until that proof is presented. Ms. Clinton could actually become the next President of the United States, if there is time to "rebirth" her candidacy, but the time is now very short, and that may be the reason the Repubs are waiting so long. Extricating herself from such a collapse, would take time, though one sees no reason she couldn't, given some substantial time.

My best "guess" at this point is that Mr. Obama will produce good evidence very soon, as a simple matter of avoiding a "last minute" advantage for his opponent, or, he is not qualified, and within a few days the matter will emerge from the shadows, and cause significant damage to his chances, and then the questions become; How much damage? and what happens if he does "survive" that damage and wins the election?

Curiouser and curiouser . . .

All you say is very true, John, and since you first proposed that idea a couple of weeks ago to me that Obama was holding out to the most precise and poignant moment to produce his evidence, such time as it would make any other attempts by the opposition to disparage anything the opposition said seem foolish and consipiratorial, that time is now, for sure. As you've said here, each passing day without the evidence doesn't any longer seem as it would be effective so there's no reason to wait past this time, as I see it. It is looking more likely that he just has no evidence to produce.

I have to agree that there are too many contradictions in his story on his birth; but then there has been a long history of contradictions in many of his stories. The man is nothng but a fraud.

Sue,

I was hesitant to ask this question earlier, but now I see it as growing germane . . . Do you have any clue as to what happens if the Obama/Biden ticket wins, and Mr. Obama is subsequently found non-eligible to serve? Does Mr. Biden take over, or Mr. McCain, or ....? Does it matter if that happens before or after swearing in? Are you aware of ANY legal remedy, or are we then in "Supreme Court patches something together" mode ?

Well, of course, there's no precendence that's been set for this, John, which may very well, ultimately, put us in that mode to which you refer. There are so many permutations of possibilities since, if he's found ineligible, the outcome will depend on whether he's found so because he can't produce the COLB, or whether he can but he was also a citizen of Indonesia and did not subsequently renounce that citizenship. If the latter, there are some legal loopholes that may dismiss the issue altogether. There are also the permutations of the entities being sued and which ones will hold up and which won't.

I had originally understood that Biden would take over, but this was toward the beginning of the suit, and I was never sure of that information. I don't think he's going to be found ineligible before the election. There is too much red tape and they're stalling. The motion to deny the claim that Obama filed has not been answered by the court, and neither have Berg's subsequent motion filings for leave, and to ask that more motions be granted. This could take weeks more.

If it were to happen before the election, I suppose that the current President could impose a state of martial law under which the election would also be suspended. That's something we don't want. I'd rather an illegal President. If it were to happen after the election, I suppose impeachment hearings would need to be set. Berg will appeal the case right up to the Supreme Court, if need be. This could take up half of his first Presidential term, though. There are so many people liable if he's found guilty of ineligibility, but to whom the damages are become different depending on who is liable. There are more possible remedies than there are entities being sued. It's all very confusing and even attorneys have differing opinions, so it depends on the attorney you ask, and what the specific question is.

"If McCain wins he will have sold his soul for the hollow victory and if he loses he will just be a angry old man that once had some sense of decency and honor.
Either way.........Obama wins!"
APE 131313 , Oct 19, 2008, 7:30am EDT

Well now that is a crock of crap! John McCain will do just fine if he doesn't win. You betcha!

Sue,

Thanks, for the verification that this is Twilight Zone stuff . . .

If that man has intentionally lied about his COLB . . I curse him. We can't afford this bullshit now . . . not now . . I pray he hasn't.

Is Obama A Natural Born Citizen? Update 10.17.2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR0pKUs-mmI


Berg's website is "Obama Crimes"

http://obamacrimes.com/index.php

Yes, that's the site I've been following from the start, Lera. This is also a very reliable source, but only Citizen Wells and Jeff Schreiber are people to pay attention to on this blog. Lots of others give links to their blogs and some of their information is faulty. Jeff Schreiber is a law student and journalist who works in the court where Berg filed the case, and he talks to Berg regularly and provides legitimate updates. He also lets you know the latest, since he sees what's coming into the clerk's office immediately.

Thanks for the info, Sue.

Both the GOP and the DNC are PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS not government organizations and they hold the interests of this nation hostage in a sense and most likely answerable to big money rather than we the people ...

To think that they have any other interest and that they do not know what they are doing, or that they have not fully checked out the mentioned qualifications is worse than naivety ... to think that Obama himself is withholding information for what ever reason is just gross stupidity ... IMnsHO.

Ok, the whole entire thing seems fabricated to me. I admit never much investigated the matter, because I deemed it a waste of time.

Somebody please give me the short version. What exactly is it that Obama is failing to produce?

And another question: As desperate as Clinton was to win the nomination, if there is a real case, why didn’t she raise it?

Also, I did go to factcheck.org; I found a page dedicated to answering questions that have been floating around on the internet, concerning Obama’s eligibility for the office of the presidency.

I don’t know if the answers adequately answer the questions you guys have; but if you have not yet seen it, I am posting it on the next comment;

The article fro factcheck.org is bellow.

The images from the site are not appearing on the post; If you like to see the images referred to on the article, go to: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html









Born in the U.S.A.
August 21, 2008
Updated: August 26, 2008
The truth about Obama's birth certificate.
Summary
In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document's authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake."

We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.

Analysis
Since we first wrote about Obama's birth certificate on June 16, speculation on his citizenship has continued apace. Some claim that Obama posted a fake birth certificate to his Web page. That charge leaped from the blogosphere to the mainstream media earlier this week when Jerome Corsi, author of a book attacking Obama, repeated the claim in an Aug. 15 interview with Steve Doocy on Fox News.

Corsi: Well, what would be really helpful is if Senator Obama would release primary documents like his birth certificate. The campaign has a false, fake birth certificate posted on their website. How is anybody supposed to really piece together his life?

Doocy: What do you mean they have a "false birth certificate" on their Web site?

Corsi: The original birth certificate of Obama has never been released, and the campaign refuses to release it.

Doocy: Well, couldn't it just be a State of Hawaii-produced duplicate?

Corsi: No, it's a -- there's been good analysis of it on the Internet, and it's been shown to have watermarks from Photoshop. It's a fake document that's on the Web site right now, and the original birth certificate the campaign refuses to produce.


Corsi isn't the only skeptic claiming that the document is a forgery. Among the most frequent objections we saw on forums, blogs and e-mails are:

The birth certificate doesn't have a raised seal.
It isn't signed.
No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version.

In the zoomed-in view, there's a strange halo around the letters.
The certificate number is blacked out.
The date bleeding through from the back seems to say "2007," but the document wasn't released until 2008.
The document is a "certification of birth," not a "certificate of birth."

Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it's stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates). We even brought home a few photographs.



The Obama birth certificate, held by FactCheck writer Joe Miller




Alvin T. Onaka's signature stamp





The raised seal





Blowup of text


You can click on the photos to get full-size versions, which haven't been edited in any way, except that some have been rotated 90 degrees for viewing purposes.

The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport: "your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all evident on the scanned version, and you can see the seal above.

The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.

The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look (to some) as though the text might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper. But the document itself has no such halos, nor do the close-up photos we took of it. We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital artifact from the scanning process.

We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that's when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and "all the records we could get our hands on" according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didn't release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama's citizenship. The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: "[We] couldn't get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information, and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then we've found out it's pretty irrelevant for the outside world." The document we looked at did have a certificate number; it is 151 1961 - 010641.



Blowup of certificate number
Some of the conspiracy theories that have circulated about Obama are quite imaginative. One conservative blogger suggested that the campaign might have obtained a valid Hawaii birth certificate, soaked it in solvent, then reprinted it with Obama's information. Of course, this anonymous blogger didn't have access to the actual document and presents this as just one possible "scenario" without any evidence that such a thing actually happened or is even feasible.


We also note that so far none of those questioning the authenticity of the document have produced a shred of evidence that the information on it is incorrect. Instead, some speculate that somehow, maybe, he was born in another country and doesn't meet the Constitution's requirement that the president be a "natural-born citizen."


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

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


Obama's birth announcement



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


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

Update, August 26: We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They couldn't tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is Obama's father's race listed as "African"? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father's race and mother's race are supplied by the parents, and that "we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be." We consider it reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as "African." It's certainly not the slam dunk some readers have made it out to be.

When we asked about the security borders, which look different from some other examples of Hawaii certifications of live birth, Kurt said "The borders are generated each time a certified copy is printed. A citation located on the bottom left hand corner of the certificate indicates which date the form was revised." He also confirmed that the information in the short form birth certificate is sufficient to prove citizenship for "all reasonable purposes."

–by Jess Henig, with Joe Miller
Sources
United States Department of State. "Application for a U.S. Passport." Accessed 20 Aug. 2008.

State of Hawaii Department of Health. "Request for Certified Copy of Birth Record." Accessed 20 Aug. 2008.

Hollyfield, Amy. "Obama's Birth Certificate: Final Chapter." Politifact.com. 27 Jun. 2008.



Copyright © 2003 - 2008, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania
FactCheck.org's staff, not the Annenberg Center, is responsible for this material.
Home | About Us | Privacy | Copyright | Contact Us

Factcheck.org is a very good resource for many issues. But for all of its strengths, it is not a competent laboratory. The question is, why not provide the document to the court? Is it because the document would then be available to the criminal laboratory system? The same system that examined the Nixon tapes and discovered that the one tape that his secretary "accidentally" erased was actually erased 23 times? There is still a lot of murk there that only presentation in court will resolve.

Jerry, you bring up a good point. Apparently, the motion to file suit against the DNC, for example, does absolutely nothing for the people because, according to the law, the DNC's failure to provide due diligence only proves damages for Obama since he is the one who would be deemed ineligible.

There's another suit that's recently been filed by another private citizen in another state, might have OH, but not sure. He filed against the Secretary of State is his state because that is the guarantor of legitmacy of the process accountable to the people in the state. This guy doesn't have a blog so you can't follow what's happening with that.

Berg is now trying to file an amended complaint against Diane Feinstein, Chairwoman of the U.S. Senate Commission on Rules and Administration who is responsible for ethics and oversight. The commission itself, also named in this motion, is responsible for investigations into eligibility requirements oof presidential and veep candidates. Berg's motion for leave that basically pleads his allowance to file this other motion has not yet been granted. Still, however, what the law calls 'injury in fact,' according to Jeff Schreiber's answer to me on this blog may still not accomplish that.

Jonathan, whether you believe in the validity of the case or not, the legal and ethical issues are very interesting, if you are interested in that kind of thing, and bring up a lot of questions as to just how the electorate is and is not protected under the law. If nothing else, this is a case that will be in history books and will set some very important legal precendents.

Also, if you read that linked blog, you'll see that the Secretary of State in PA, has also been named in that motion.

Sue, there is another story about a guy in Washington, as well, at THIS LINK

Very interesting additional information ... not everything is a conspiracy, but they sure do exist ... and as this theory (?) shows, it is not only liberals that can come up with them ... :-)

Yes, Berf, that's the one I was thinking of when I mentioned the other case, two comments of mine above.. It wasn't in OH, but WA. Thanks for that.

Jerry, I just don't see it that way at all. There are, obviously, very critical issues here in regard to the legitmacy of our election process, who is accountable and to whom. It's far beyond any consipiracy, unless you just want to see it that way. Pretend this isn't about Obama at all. The issue remains that there is no clear accountability to the people, and this overrides any other issue, as I see it.

Sue, I do not see myself in disagreement with you at all on this ... other than possibly that the "right" can also believe in conspiracy ... when it suits them. :-)

I personally believe that anything is possible ... because my belief "system" extends well into spiritual subjectivity ... (tin foil hat stuff) ... (of course "other" such thoughts such as religious faith is naturally exempt from questioning).

I seek the deepest and the highest truths in everything no matter what it takes and the strictly objective world versions are no longer good enough for me because the world is very confused and devious ... conspiracies do exist and all of this could well be a part of such ... the more that is at stake the greater the reason to conspire ... IMnsHO.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, Jerry, but in light of your comment to all I had written, your only response alluded to conspiracy, so I'm sure you can understand my confusion. From all I've read from you, that did surprise me since you seem to lead one to understand that you are interested in the 'highest truths.' Thanks for the clarification.

The power of Obama compels you!
The power of Obama compels you!
The power of Obama compels you!
The power of Obama compels you!
The power of Obama compels you!
The power of Obama compels you!
The power of Obama compels you!

Sue, if there is a legitimate case, why didn’t Clinton peruse it?

I remember at the stubborn insistence of the Obama campaign, Clinton was forced to release her tax return.

I am thinking, if there is any truth to what you are saying, Clinton could have fired back and insisted that he release whatever documents you are claiming he didn’t produce.

But, she didn’t; why?

I am assuming that the campaign had much more information than is available to the web bloggers and realized the case was fabricated and could easily be disproven.

Sue, do you have a more plausible explanation as to why the Clinton campaign didn’t peruse the matter?

Jonathan, Berg is an attorney and a Democrat who is an avid Clinton supporter. Though he has contended that he is not working on behalf of the Clintons, but as a citizen concerned with the integrity of his party, there may be some connection, though that would be speculative.
I have no idea what the Clinton agenda might or might not be, Jonathan. You may as well ask me why the Republicans haven't.

Jonathan, I realize you've been gone for awhile, so you may have missed some of the articles I posted on this suit. Here is the first artilce I published, shortly after I started to follow the case.

In this latest post, the last of which I have publicly published, you will also find links to information that can apprise you of the case more fully than I can in comments. If you follow those links and the links withing the blogs, paying only attention to what Berg says, what his assistant, Citizen Wells says, and what Jeff Schreiber says, you will have facts about what has transpired so far regarding the suit.

You said you had dismissed it because you found it fabricated. Whether or not you want to believe the allegations, the case is in the court system, Berg is willing to spend vast resources of time and money to appeal it should it be thrown out, and it does raise ethical issues about our election system. There is a lot of material there. Should you have questions, I can do my best to answer them after you have edified yourself adequately, though there may be some legalities for which I may not have answers.

Well, we sure are happy to have you on the case, honey. I was staying up nights thinking you might have lost interest.

You don't have a job, do you?

Also, honey, before you get yourself all lathered up wanting to know if I'll answer all the silly little questions you'll ask, it's because I don't think you're very important around here. Alot of people seem to hang around you but none of them seem real fond of you. Now, if that sweet young man Tom asks me something, I'll be happy to talk to him, but you look like someone else whose pet canary is tired of listening to her so you found yourself the world wide web instead. And I think that's just sweet. Everyone needs a hobby,, honey.

Mr. Tailgunner,, I will have to ask my gay son if he has ever met you in one of those bars. I bet he would remember such a silly little man.

Jonathan, I also want to make it clear that I am not telling you who you should read and not read, but just as it relates to the matters of the case. About a week ago, someone here wrote an article saying that Obama's motion to dismiss had been denied and he had to produce the Certificate of Live Birth. I had no idea what she was talking about until I found out that she had gotten the info from a blogger who had posted a procedural document that was misinterpreted as a court order. Upon further investigation, I found out that the rumor was all over the Internet.

I had stopped reading most of the other linked blogs because I had already seen evidence of information that was inaccurate on some. You have the same moronic nutcases everywhere. Just look around.

Mariah, change your clothes, or at least your writing style.

Ok Sue; As soon as I get a chance I will check out your earlier posts, and then I will get back to you.

I must admit, the whole case has a strong odor of nonsense; the only reason I am even giving it a second glance is because I have a lot of respect for your ability to look at things critically. I will try to get a glimpse of what you already have gathered and then we will go from there.

http://www.gather.com/viewImage.jsp?fileId=3096224745239701&nav=MyGather&memberId=200056

I have posted a copy of his birth certificate taken from the LA times. Lets move on folks. The republicans are loosing plain and simple. This none sense isn't going to change that.

"I have posted a copy of his birth certificate taken from the LA times."

Jennifer, are you sure that's from the LA Times? I don't think anyone has ever seen that before. Get that over to Judge Surrick ASAP. You'll be the researcher responsible for closing the whole case. Do it, and do it now!

Why does my post show 3:59PM, and Mariah's show 4PM when I posted well after 4PM and my comment is after hers?

She does sound very much like you, Mariah, and I can only assume one would try to disguise oneself with some variation, but it is difficult to tell some of you apart. In my unemployment hours here in my office, one of my favorite pastimes is to take a business emvelope and run it down the margin of the screen. I take off my glasses so I can't read the smaller printed hyperlinks with the names under the comments, and try to guess who said it. I'm right so often when I do know the commentators.

My next guess is that she's the Wide Woman or 'Dented Flossy.'

.

Hmm.....I wonder who provided the L.A. Times with the COPY???

No, my clock was the first thing I checked, and it was correct matched with my cell phone and the display on the desk telephone, and I don't think that would have made a difference anyway, since it's their server that times it.

Oh, that should have said Wise Woman. Truly, that was a typo, but I don't suppose anyone would believe it.

Berf, that's just the short form that the forensic examiners are saying is false. Did you happen to look at the dates of that blog? That was published before this lawsuit was even filed.

Well, it seems odd that if you're really tired of it, Mariah, you chose to comment to that rather than to my comment about the time checking.

Yes, I realize that , Sue........

However, my actual point was it is the exact same one that Jennifer B. is referring to above.....

Oh, yes, it is one and the same, Berf. When I asked if she were sure it was from the LA Times it was just part of the rest of the comment. I don't also suppose I expect her to send it to the judge, but you never do know.

Mariah,

I'm curious;

"My theme today seems to be trying to understand why Obama attracts these rumors."

Just what is it about simply producing a birth certificate for the judge to have examined by qualified persons, that makes this seem so implausible to you? I mean, why would Mr, Obama allow such a thing to fester, and spend real money farting around in court, rather than just end the thing, if he did indeed have a valid certificate?

Mariah, I can’t speak for any of the others you’ve mentioned, but my interest in this case is for reasons I have clearly stated in this post. Beyond that, I am also a strict constitutionalist, and I have seen two very astute forensic experts whose reputations in their profession would be tainted beyond repair should they be incorrect, come forth with concrete scientific evidence of what they believe deems the birth certificate that factcheck.org validates as invalid. It is in the Constitution that a person not only President but, running for the office, must be a natural born US citizen. Now either he is or he isn’t, and either he can prove that he is or he can’t.

This is a Presidential election in the most critical of times. That Obama has not produced the Certificate of Live Birth that is available to him, if it exists, is plain silly. Why won’t he do it? Why does he not wish to dispel all the notions of rumors because all he’s produced is a facsimile on a website? Where is this document? Is that a demand out of fear? Is it an unreasonable demand? This is documentation that is necessary for anyone to produce.

Another thing, unrelated, I was thinking on the drive home was that it was getting dark awfully early and contemplating the time change coming up. That brought to mind this time problem we had in those two comments earlier, because I remembered the last time we changed to daylight savings time the time on Gather was all screwed up. Some people in the same time zones were showing times that were an hour apart. Kevin explained that it was because some people are on different servers and they hadn’t been synchronized. Maybe our information comes in on different servers and there was a minute lapse in one of the servers. Of course, this would mean that this problem showed up in other places on the site today too. People may not have even noticed it. Just a possibility..

These API tapes of the discussion Michelle Obama had with the editor of this African newspaper are coming out tomorrow.
Guess who API has retained as its attorney for the distribution of this evidence?
Philip Berg, Esq. What fun!

"My husband was born in Hawaii and adopted by his step father, does that make him unpatriotic; she asks", on a direct telephone to API.

48th comment down is Berg's.

Philip J. Berg, Esquire Says:
October 15, 2008 at 5:46 pm
"This article confirms what I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, have been arguing for months for all of the citizens of the United States that Obama is “not” qualified to be President of the United States, as required by our U.S. Constitution!

Our U.S. Constitution states that the “qualifications” for President are: 1) be thirty-five [35] years of age; 2) live in the United States for fourteen [14] years; and 3) be a “natural born” citizen. Obama fulfills the 1st two “qualifications,” but fails in the 3rd.

If Obama’s wife, Michelle’s version is correct, she confirms what I alleged, that Obama was either “adopted” or “acknowledged” by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro. Mrs. Obama states Obama was “adopted.”

The adoption means that when Obama returned to the United States, if he came through U.S. Immigration, Obama would only be “naturalized” and therefore ineligible to be President. If Obama did not go through U.S. Immigration, he would be an illegal alien and therefore not only be ineligible to be President, but also ineligible to be U.S. Senator from Illinois and subject to deportation.

Thank you - Michelle Obama !"

Sue, I knew about this development but have been waiting for the tapes to be released and verified.

It seems like this guy named Andy Martin has filed some papers with the Hawaii Supreme Court asking for an emergency writ opening secret Obama birth files.

And it's been announced today that O.B. is taking two days off from the campaign trail to visit his ailing grandmother in Hawaii. She was in the hospital last week but is home now.

I didn't know the tapes were going to be released in full at all, Lera. Tomorrow is the day!

Maybe he can make a trip to town hall when he visits granny.

"Maybe he can make a trip to town hall when he visits granny."
Sue B.© The Sting IS Worse Than the Buzz, Oct 20, 2008, 11:11pm ED

Exactly ...........


I'm not sure if they'll be released in full either. I saw today where they (API) wrote an open letter to Michelle Obama and I just finished reading it. They're talking releasing parts of it.

"'Yes,' Berg wrote."
Sue B.© The Sting IS Worse Than the Buzz, Oct 20, 2008, 11:18pm ED

Woo Hoo!

Jeff Schreiber writes, "Should I be wrong on this (and even over and beyond this post at API's Web site, I have reason to believe that I am), I will gladly own up to it -- once I'm finished doing the dance of joy in my living room. I asked Philip Berg, via e-mail, href="http://www.americasright.com/">whether or not he thought the API/Michelle Obama tapes were real and whether they would in fact be released within the next day or so as Chief Editor Korir maintains.

His answer was simple, and firm."

'Yes,' Berg wrote.

OK, what are you doing? Fixing your last post? It's gone!

Sorry, Lera, I took it down to fix some tupos for a second soour comments are out of order, but yes, woo hoo!

A-ha! Now it's back! lol

I can't even type typos, but I'm leaving that up.

tupos?

LOL

Good night, dear one! See you tomorrow.

Here's the link that my HTML messed up in the last comment.

Nite!

I still want to see the document provided to the court. This does not seem unreasonable to me. If the document is provided to the court, then its validity can be confirmed or denied. That it SEEMs to be reasonable to me or to anyone else, including factcheck.org, is irrelevant. Government labs are not infallible, nor is their credibility (the OJ Simpson criminal trial disaster is a prime example) but an independent oversight role is essential. It may SEEM to be a valid document. But (for example) does the chemical composition of the ink, compared to the ink of several dozen documentations issued by the state of Hawaii, match that of the presented document? Another example: Atmospheric testing of nuclear devices was in full swing at that point in time; fission fragments were incorporated into the carbon cycle in a unique composition and combination. Assessment of the degree of incorporation of these chemicals and isotopes into the paper would definitively confirm or deny the vintage of this document is consistent with the asserted origin, along with carbon dating: consistent or not? Why is examination at this level denied? I can only conclude that it is assumed submission of the document would fail this exam if such were invoked. No matter how sophisticated the counterfeit document, under real scrutiny it would pass or it would fail. Like not subjecting yourself to a sobriety test while driving, not submitting to the test is a refusal to be tested. It is an admission that it would confirm its counterfeit status.

I recommend Richard Cohen's op ed from the Wash Po today.

This is all part of the "he's not one of us" theme.

Very sad. But there it is.

"It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Bush and now John McCain have constructed a mean, grumpy, exclusive, narrow-minded and altogether retrograde Republican Party."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/20/AR2008102002292.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Mariah is absolutely correct. The burden of proof rests with the plaintiff. Making the accusation is not enough. He has to provide proof.

Quick question: should Obama win this thing, how quickly will the right move a) to claim the election was fixed and/or b) attempt to introduce impeachment proceedings against him?

Mariah,

"The common legal strategy is to get rid of the nuisance, not legitimize it by responding to what the defendant regards as the plaintiff's unreasonable demands."

Well, if I was advising Mr. Obama, I'd advise him to think outside the box, at this point  ; )

John,

You missed the other part. Berg has yet to meet the burden of proof.

N.K.: I wonder if API has anything on that nipple on Obama's back?

Mariah W., Oct 21, 2008, 8:42am EDT

Don't laugh Mariah - it has to be true. I read it on the internets...

I don't make this stuff up Mariah. I just report it.

*okay, I do make up some stuff*

Me too. Time for work.

Mariah,

"My theme today seems to be trying to understand why Obama attracts these rumors. What follows is a restatement of comments I've made elsewhere."

Well, it seems to me, that your "theme" for today, is the same as your theme everyday. And it seems to be TELLING people it is wrong to think certain things, and TELLING people that to think certain things renders them "silly", by default. It seems not to have anything at all to do with "trying to understand", but trying to plant a lot of your thoughts in other people's minds. Thoughts about how "silly" it is to question Mr. Obama's past or present behaviour. And defaming those who are attempting to uncover extremely relevant aspects of his past, which Mr. Obama has decided to make very hard to get a good look at.

I take an entirely different approach to trying to understand things, which involves the careful consideration of what folks say, and the asking of meaningful questions, in conjunction with the presentation of clear reasoning. I consider TELLING people it is wrong to think certain things, or attaching shame to doing so, a form of propaganda.

I asked you a simple question really; Why not just produce a valid birth certificate? You suddenly lost your reasoning ability, apparently, and gave me some blather about what Mr. Obama's supposed legal strategy is. And, you told me what "the common" approach to a truly uncommon situation is . . . And basically advised folks to wait and see. But, you did not wait and see. You continued TELLING people not to think certain things, and attaching shame to doing so.

Now, I would rather not falsely conclude you are just a propagandist, for you seem to be a reasonably intelligent person, from which I might myself gain some understanding of something which I have been wondering about. I wonder; Why do many who support Mr. Obama, employ tactics distinctly similar to those employed by Mr. Bush's supporters these several years, if "change" is the "theme" of Mr. Obama's approach to our nation's rather precarious status as a truly "free country" ?   Why, if the secrecy and obfuscatory nature of Mr. Bush's Administration is what we need to get away from, are folks like yourself working so hard to justify Mr. Obama's refusal to do something as simple as demonstrate he is eligible to be President?

Why aren't you speaking of how Mr. Obama has nothing to hide, rather than trying to justify his hiding of anything? Can you give some reasonable explanation you can see for why this eligibility matter was not put to rest long ago? An extremely similar shadow was cast upon his opponent's eligibility, and was addressed rather promptly, resulting in the "nuisance" going away quite nicely. What are your thoughts on why Mr. Obama would not do well to take that same approach?

I personally think it would go a long way toward establishing the change I would like to see in our nation, and certainly help to alleviate my own interest in "these rumours", if Mr. Obama cooperated with the perfectly understandable, and to my mind perfectly legitimate, interest many have in the past of a man asking that we trust him to hold the highest office in our government.

"In any case, the burden is on Berg to prove his claim." Once the court agrees that significant doubt has been raised, the burden of proof shifts to the one aspiring to office. The nominee must be squeaky clean. Mr Obama, provide your document to the legally convened court. The nation has the right to require credentials be verifiable.

I have to disagree Tailgunner. Once the court agrees that a significant doubt has been raised, he will set a discovery schedule. At that point Berg can subpoena the birth certificate. Should they fail to produce it, then he can file a motion for sanctions. Motions will be filed and ruled on and eventually a trial date will be set. More than likely a year or more from now.

Kinda like the way Palin tried to ignore her subpoena's in Alaska... no wait. She did ignore her subpoena's.

This comment is to let you know your content has reached at least ten comments, and as such has been removed from Comment Speedway! Congratulations.

If naught for curiousity's sake, I wonder what would happen if something like this does get shown after the election? Will the Dems actually demand he resign or rework the Constitution?