Thread: Obama’s Campaign Ends?

10/24/2008 11:18:00 PM

Obama’s Campaign Ends?

By DANIEL DOWNS

After reviewing evidence presented by Attorney Philip Berg, US District Court Judge Honorable R. Barry Surrick has ruled that Barack Hussein Obama was not a "natural born" or "naturalized" citizen and is ineligible to run for and/or serve as President of the United States.

Judge Surrick then ordered the Democratic National Committee to cease all campaign activity on behalf of their candidate for President. He further ordered Obama be removed from all election ballots.

Before jumping to conclusions, the civil action brief of Attorney Berg begins by identifying himself as a life-long Democrat who is proud of his party. It cannot be said that Berg is a right-wing zealot grasping at any accusation to prevent the oppositional party from being elected. No, Berg is here fulfilling his oath to uphold the Constitution.

In addition to his defense of Constitutional integrity, Berg also says his purpose is to defend the integrity of his Party. Many people have given of their money and time in support of Party goals, which include "to restore accountability, honesty, and openness at all levels of government", to "restore the Constitution and protect the civil rights and liberties of all Americans," and to "uphold the Constitution." Berg continues, "[t]o uphold the Constitution includes making sure that the candidate is eligible to serve as President pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of our United States Constitution and that such candidate runs a fair and legitimate campaign."

As for the evidence, Berg investigation discovered Obama was born in Kenya. His father was a citizen of Kenya. His was 18 years old at the time. Even though a child born to a U.S. citizen could acquire natural born citizenship, his then 18-year-old mother did not meet U.S. law governing citizenship. Obama became a citizen of Kenya. He was schooled there under the name of Barry Hussein Soetoro, the name of his father Lolo Soetoro. His citizenship in Kenya was confirmed from school records.

Attorney Berg and Judge Surrick have proven that Constitutional Democracy in our Republic of states still works as intended by this nation's Founders.

Source: Berg v Obama, et. al., Civil Action No. 08-cv-04083 (E.D. Pen. Oct. 22, 200.

http://xeniagazette.1upmonitor.com/main ... M=85035.18

So what does this mean? No hint of it on the msm websites yet.

Will nothing happen because of appeals?

Went to the link, appears to be a regular newspaper?

Going to go find Berg's site and see what's going on here.

If true, and the news breaks, I think we are staying home today...

Confused. This link says the Berg's suit was rejected.

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-136219.html

What's the deal??

Originally Posted by fedupinwaukegan

Confused. This link says the Berg's suit was rejected.

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-136219.html

What's the deal??

Can somone help us on this?

This is from a blog. Link at bottom for more news.


Friday, October 24, 2008
Two Articles, Two Sides of Berg v. Obama



After two months, news of Philip Berg's federal lawsuit is finally gaining traction. Pieces are popping up on local television stations from Florida to Alaska. The Internet buzz has reached more mainstream Web sites such as Newsmax and WorldNetDaily. Articles are popping up in big and small newspapers from coast to coast. Even Rush Limbaugh mentioned the case on his Thursday afternoon program, and Michael Savage did a surprising long interview with Berg later that evening.

"I was told that I would be doing a ten-minute segment," Berg told me on the telephone this evening. "The next thing I knew, it had been almost an hour."

Two recent articles in particular, however, caught my eye. The difference between them is stark, and could be a microcosm of the outcome of the case. The first one, for example, talks more about the evidence side of the action, about whether or not Barack Obama truly is eligible to be president of the United States; the second one talks more about the procedural angle, about whether or not Philip Berg has standing to sue.

In my opinion, the result of this action on the District Court level will depend upon whether the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick is more interested in the underlying eligibility questions, or in the satisfaction of the requirements necessary to raise them.

The first piece is by Kenneth Timmerman of Newsmax, the same reporter who, just a few days ago, wrote so well about the questionable $63 million in Barack Obama's campaign coffers. He goes into detail about Obama's birth certificate, even providing a link to the Certificate of Live Birth provided by the Illinois senator, and an official Certificate of Live Birth from a person born just two years later. Reproduction issues aside, one quite obviously provides more information than the other.

Timmerman also raises an interesting point by highlighting a segment from one of Obama's memoirs in which he actually mentions the document:

Ironically, Obama mentions his birth certificate in passing on Page 26 of his 1995 memoir, “Dreams of My Father.â€

THE JUDGE HAS NOT RULED YET, ANYTHING STATING BERG WON OR LOST IS A WORK OF THE WRITERS DREAMS AND DESIRES

I will keep people posted on the following links, we have gotten so many I can't post on them all without it becoming a full time job!

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... 470#794470

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... 417#794417

I was sent this link regarding this topic. It comes from the RNC.

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_ ... ode=6E2D-1

Obama Refuses to Answer Birth Certificate Lawsuit

Friday, October 24, 2008 4:16 PM

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman

A Pennsylvania lawsuit alleging that Barack Obama is not a “natural-born citizenâ€

[b]“Obama 'admits' Kenyan birth?â€

I just recieved this...

Judge rejects Montco lawyer's bid to have Obama removed from ballotBy MICHAEL HINKELMAN
Philadelphia Daily News

hinkelm@phillynews.com 215-854-2656

A federal judge in Philadelphia last night threw out a complaint by a Montgomery County lawyer who claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was not qualified to be president and that his name should be removed from the Nov. 4 ballot.
Philip J. Berg alleged in a complaint filed in federal district court on Aug. 21 against Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission, that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya.

Berg claimed that the Democratic presidential standardbearer is not even an American citizen but a citizen of Indonesia and therefore ineligible to be president.

He alleged that if Obama was permitted to run for president and subsequently found to be ineligible, he and other voters would be disenfranchised.

U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick had denied Berg's request for a temporary restraining order on Aug. 22 but had not ruled on the merits of the suit until yesterday.

Obama and the Democratic National Committee had asked Surrick to dismiss Berg's complaint in a court filing on Sept. 24.

They said that Berg's claims were "ridiculous" and "patently false," that Berg had "no standing" to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for president because he had not shown the requisite harm to himself.

Surrick agreed.

In a 34-page memorandum and opinion, the judge said Berg's allegations of harm were "too vague and too attenuated" to confer standing on him or any other voters.

Surrick ruled that Berg's attempts to use certain laws to gain standing to pursue his claim that Obama was not a natural-born citizen were "frivolous and not worthy of discussion."

The judge also said the harm Berg alleged did "not constitute an injury in fact" and Berg's arguments to the contrary "ventured into the unreasonable."

For example, Berg had claimed that Obama's nomination deprived citizens of voting for Sen. Hillary Clinton in November. (Berg backed Clinton in the primaries.)

Berg could not be reached for comment last night.

Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, and the campaign posted a document issued by Hawaii on its Web site, fight thesmears.com, confirming his birth there.

Berg said in court papers that the image was a forgery.

The nonpartisan Web site FactCheck.org examined the original document and said it was legitimate.

Further, a birth announcement in the Aug. 13, 1961, Honolulu Advertiser listed Obama's birth there on Aug. 4. *

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/2 ... allot.html

One interesting thing about Obama visiting his gravely ill grandmother is that he didn't take his wife. She was out on the campaign trail just yesterday yelling about stuff. The key is, where are his girls? Are they at the bedside of their ill great grandmother, or at home or on the campaign bus? Just a perspective.

Two recent articles in particular, however, caught my eye. The difference between them is stark, and could be a microcosm of the outcome of the case. The first one, for example, talks more about the evidence side of the action, about whether or not Barack Obama truly is eligible to be president of the United States; the second one talks more about the procedural angle, about whether or not Philip Berg has standing to sue.

In my opinion, the result of this action on the District Court level will depend upon whether the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick is more interested in the underlying eligibility questions, or in the satisfaction of the requirements necessary to raise them.

This is the heart of the matter.

The procedural angle is most interesting to me but it also has a damages condition. Some could say Berg has no damages to caim, however, he is a Hillary supporter and could claim she lost the nomination to someone that was not eligible to run. He's a voter but may not really have damages until Obama is elected. Hillary could claim she was damaged, since he narrowly won the nomination. Now the coin flips, if Obmama wins the presidential election, is the RNC and John McCain the true plaintiffs? Are they the ones that need to pick up the suit? If they loose, then they will have damages to claim.

Dixie