Philip Berg's Federal Lawsuit: Obama Is Not an American Citizen
[Editor's Note: Don Nicoloff and I have been talking on the phone for the past few months about the many dubious qualifications of Barack Hussein Obama to run for President of the United States, the least of which is the-all-too-easy-to discover fact that this Illuminati (Rockefeller) groomed INFILTRATOR was NOT born in America. I posted an article on August 6 titled Barack Obama: Can a Foreign-born Infiltrator Run for President?to emphasize the fact that Obama CANNOT establish the fact that he was born in Hawaii as he claims-- because he can't produce a legally acceptable CERTIFIED U.S. birth certificate. Instead, his Zbigniew Brzezinski-directed web site spin doctors posted a fraudulent, PhotoShop-created "birth certificate" and smugly announced to the world: "case closed."
Thank God, there are still a few in the legal profession, like Philip Berg, whether for altruistic or not-so-altruistic reasons, will not just idly stand by while such FLAGRANT chicanery and fraud is being perpetrated upon the American public. Even if Berg is a toady for Hillary Clinton (un-electable I'm now convinced), his actions serve the greater good in any event. Naturally, not one word of this lawsuit will be mentioned in our mainstream propaganda media, nor from our "alternative" news media sources such as Amy Goodman, Sonali Kolhatkar, or Lila Garrett of KPFK radio and their Rockefeller-funded parent organization, Pacifica Radio..Ken Adachi]
From; Philip J. Berg, Esq. <email@example.com>
August 21, 2008
For Immediate Release: - 08/21/08
Suit filed 08/21/08, No. 08-cv-4083
Contact information at the end of this press release. Documents filed with the court and a copy of this press release can be downloaded at the end of this press release.
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 08/21/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, [Berg is a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania; former candidate for Governor and U.S. Senate in Democratic Primaries; former Chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery County; former member of Democratic State Committee; an attorney with offices in Montgomery County, PA and an active practice in Philadelphia, PA, filed a lawsuit in Federal Court today, Berg vs. Obama, Civil Action No. 08-cv-4083, seeking a Declaratory Judgment and an Injunction that Obama does not meet the qualifications to be President of the United States. Berg filed this suit for the best interests of the Democratic Party and the citizens of the United States.
Philip J. Berg, Esquire stated in his lawsuit that Senator Obama:
1. Is not a naturalized citizen; and/or
2. Lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia; and/or
3. Has dual loyalties because of his citizenship with Kenya and Indonesia.
Berg stated: “I filed this action at this time to avoid the obvious problems that will occur when the Republican Party raises these issues after Obama is nominated.
There have been numerous questions raised about Obama’s background with no satisfactory answers. The questions that I have addressed include, but are not limited to:
1. Where was Obama born? Hawaii; an island off of Hawaii; Kenya; Canada; or ?
2. Was he a citizen of Kenya, Indonesia and/or Canada?
3. What was the early childhood of Obama in Hawaii; in Kenya; in Indonesia when he was adopted; and later, back to Hawaii?
4. An explanation as to the various names utilized by Obama that include: Barack Hussein Obama; Barry Soetoro; Barry Obama; Barack Dunham; and Barry Dunham.
5. Illinois Bar Application – Obama fails to acknowledge use of names other than Barack Hussein Obama, a blatant lie.
If Obama can prove U.S. citizenship, we still have the issue of muti-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegance to other countries.
“Eighteen million Democratic Primary voters donated money, volunteered their time and energy, worked very hard and then not only supported Senator Clinton, but voted for her and often recruited other supporters as well. All the efforts of supporters of legitimate citizens were for nothing because this man lied and cheated his way into a
fraudulent candidacy and cheated legitimately eligible natural born citizens from competing in a fair process and the supporters of their citizen choice for the nomination.
Voters donated money, goods and services to elect a nominee and were defrauded by Senator Obama's lies and obfuscations. He clearly shows a conscience of guilt by his actions in using the forged birth certificate and the lies he's told to cover his loss of citizenship. We believe he does know, supported this belief by his actions in hiding his
secret, in that he failed to regain his citizenship and used documents to further his position as a natural born citizen. We would also show he proclaims himself a Constitutional scholar and lecturer, but did not learn he had no eligibility to become President except by means of lying, obfuscations and deceptions. His very acts proves he knew he was no longer a natural born citizen. We believe he knew he was defrauding the country or else why use the forged birth certificate of his half sister?
Americans lost money, goods and services donated in their support of a candidate who supposedly was a natural born citizen simply because the DNC officers and party leaders looked the other way and did not demand credentials to answer the questions and prove whether or not Senator Obama was a legitimately natural born citizen, even in light of recent information that has surfaced on websites on the Internet suggesting Senator Obama may not be eligible to become President and questioning his status of multiple citizenships and questionable loyalties! If the DNC officers and.or leaders had performed one ounce of due diligence we would not find ourselves in this emergency predicament, one week away from making a person the nominee who has lost their citizenship as a child and failed to even perform the basic steps of regaining citizenship through an oath of allegiance at age eighteen  as prescribed by Constitutional laws!
The injunctrive relief must be granted because failing to do so, this inaction defrauds everyone who voted in the Democratic Primary for a nominee that is a fair representation of the voters. Failure to grant injunctive relief would allow a corrupted, fraudulent nomination process to continue. It not only allows, but promotes an overwhelming degree of disrespect and creates such a lack of confidence in voters of the primary process itself, so that it would cement a prevailing belief that no potential candidate has to obey the laws of this country, respect our election process, follow the Constitution, or even suffer any consequence for lying and defrauding voters to get onto the ballot when they have no chance of serving if they fraudulently manage to get elected! It is unfair to the country for candidates of either party to become the nominee when there is any question of their ability to serve if elected.
All judges are lawyers and held to a higher standard of practice than a regular lawyer. It is this Judicial standard that demands injunctive relief prayed for here. This relief is predicated upon one of the most basic premises of practicing law which states no lawyer can allow themselves to be used in furthering a criminal enterprise. And by that gauge alone, failing to give injunctive relief to the 18 million supporters of the other candidate, a true natural born citizen eligible to serve if elected, this court must not allow itself to be used to further the criminal and fraudulent acts to continue and be rewarded by becoming the Democratic Nominee. Failure to give the injunctive relief prayed for will insure that a corrupted Presidential election process will only guarantee a show of unfair preference of one group of people over another group by not demanding the same rules be applied to all groups equally and fairly, especially in light of the fact that both candidates are each considered a minority.
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(800) 993-PHIL 
Fax (610) 834-7659
# # #
[Editor's Note: I repost the following article in the interest of disseminating what Philip Berg had to say, rather than the asinine, ludicrous, flag-waving denial statements made by the interviewer, Jeff Numbnuts , in the opening paragraphs concerning his "differences" with Berg over 911. .Ken]
Saturday, August 23, 2008
A Conversation with Philip J. Berg, Esq.
Fairly late yesterday evening, I had the opportunity to speak with Philip Berg, the Philadelphia attorney who filed suit against Illinois senator Barack Obama in Federal Court in Philadelphia, questioning the constitutional eligibility of his candidacy for president. I was fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right time to break the story, which only now is beginning to gain traction for a hopeful leap into the mainstream media. Berg, who served as Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania for eight years, ran twice for governor in 1990 and 1998 and once for the U.S. Senate in 1994, was former chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery (PA) County and a former member of the Democratic State Committee, was more than happy to speak with me yesterday afternoon in the lobby of the courthouse following a hearing in the chambers of the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick.
Immediately, we established that we couldn't be more ideologically dissimilar. He believes that the United States government was behind the attacks of September 11, 2001; the very mention of such theories make me ill. He was an ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton's candidacy during the primaries; I sell tee shirts showing the former first lady and one of her quotes ("We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good," said in June 2004) juxtaposed under the words "RE-DEFEAT COMMUNISM."
Needless to say, Philip Berg and I are very different. I'm not sure that I completely buy into the various allegations made in the complaint filed late on Thursday afternoon, but I value more than anything other than my wife and child the United States Constitution and the ideas and ideals of those who wrote it here in Philadelphia so many years ago; for that reason, I firmly believe that Berg's action against Barack Obama must be given the full attention that it deserves, for the sake of America and everything for which She stands.
Philip Berg, from what I can tell, is not the stark-raving mad whack-job that people on the American political left are already portraying him to be. In our two discussions, he was rational, he was calm, he was congenial and showed a sense of humor -- something I thought inexistent in most liberals. I'm not afraid to say that I like the guy. He found time to fit me in amidst an increasingly busy schedule. He had just completed a 20-minute live, drive-time radio interview with a San Diego, CA show, presumably Roger Hedgecock's show, but I don't know for sure. Earlier on Friday, he taped a 20-minute interview with Webster Tarpley, apparently an influential figure among those who, like Berg, feel that our federal government, incapable and cumbersome as it is, was able to organize and execute the 9/11 attacks and keep the conspiracy quiet afterwards. I didn't press on Tarpley; I'm like David Banner when I get angry, only with love handles. Berg also mentioned that he was to be on Coast To Coast AM early this morning from about 1:15 to 3:00 a.m., and on Monday was scheduled for another drive-time interview on a Mississippi radio station.
The mainstream press, once it does grab a hold of this story, will undoubtedly cast Philip Berg as either (1) a nutjob with a questionable past or (2) a low-level party operative retained by Hillary Clinton and her flunkies to do some dirty work in the days leading up to the nominating conventio in Denver. I thought I'd tackle the latter issue first, perhaps to determine where his loyalties lie and how he feels about the candidates.
Being the natural skeptic that I am, Mr. Berg, I couldn't help but think that a relatively well-known and respectable local party operative such as yourself would be the perfect person to act as surrogate on behalf of Hillary Clinton and her campaign, only a matter of weeks after she somehow maneuvered her way into having her name included in the nomination. Care to comment?
I have had no direct or indirect contact with anyone on the Hillary Clinton campaign. Did I help her in the primaries? Yes. Was I in favor of her over Obama? Yes. What did I do? I contributed some money and made some phone calls to various states for her. Other than that, I attended one Montgomery County [PA] Democratic Committee dinner at which her daughter spoke, though for the record, Obama’s representative was also at the same function. So, am I closely involved with them?
And as I told you this afternoon, even among those who helped me prepare for this case, while I know they may be against Obama’s violation of the Constitution, I do not even know nor have I asked where they stand politically.
What was it that drew you to Hillary's candidacy in the first place?
I think that she is a remarkable woman. I think that over the years she has shown herself to be a leader. I was looking at everyone at the very beginning and I thought she really stood her ground. I think that we could use a woman in the White House, and I think she knows the issues, and the experience she had being First Lady helped, along with the experience gained in the Senate since then.
Throughout the past year, though, she and Barack Obama had shown themselves to be ideologically planting their flag on the same turf. Before you knew about all of this other stuff, before birth certificates, citizenship and eligibility, what was it that so turned you off to Obama? Obama just never turned me on. There has always been something missing there, and as his various associations came out, the kind of people he was involved with, it really turned my stomach. I couldn’t believe it.
That, and he had an excuse for everything. His phony responses to the Rev. [Jeremiah] Wright issue turned me off. He said "I never knew what he was like." He was a member of that church for twenty years. Twenty years! When the story first broke, he went on all of the television and cable stations and claimed he was never in the pew when Rev. Wright made any of these remarks. By the time he made his speech in Philadelphia days later—a speech that the mainstream media agreed might have been the best in the history of the world—he did a complete turnabout and admitted that he was in the pew at the time of the remarks. At what point is enough, enough?
It should be noted that Oprah joined that church in 1984 and left in 1986 because she felt that the viewpoint of Rev. Wright and that church could be detrimental to her television career. [I suppose he meant THIS --Jeff] Obama was somehow there for twenty years and did not know what Rev. Wright was like? Nobody can believe that. And then it went on, issue after issue, association after association, Bill Ayers and so on and so forth. And the media let him slide. They let him slide on doing drugs. Cocaine, marijuana – some other candidate saying this would be hammered by the media.Everything was overlooked. Look at the issue he’s making now, about John McCain not knowing how many properties he owns.
The way it was phrased in the television commercial, it looked to me to be an obvious reference to his age. Don't you think?
That’s right. Why can’t we ask Obama about the time he said he had visited 57 states [there are only 50 states]? If Hillary Clinton had stated that, you’d still be hearing about it today. If McCain had said that, you’d still be hearing about it. But Barack Obama says it, and it just disappears.
Not to mention that, in the weeks and months leading up to the 2004 election, the folks in your party were up in arms about any reference to the considerable wealth of Teresa Heinz Kerry. Now that it is Cindy McCain and not Ms. Imperceptible Accent, family wealth is fair game. Why is that?
I don't know. Listen, she’s worth over $100 million dollars. They can have as many houses as they want. But I must give credit to McCain – he’s never taken an earmark during all his years in the Senate for the state of Arizona. Now, the guy has crossed the line on a number of bills and I cannot say that I’m rooting for McCain, but he certainly has more pluses than Obama. Obama is an empty suit. He’s very good when he delivers a speech—I don’t know if he writes them himself or has a team of speechwriters—but when he’s off of the teleprompter, his oratory goes down the drain. That’s why he didn’t want to do all of these town meetings across the country with McCain, and the atrocious performance at Saddleback Church last week shows that Obama will likely falter in the three scheduled debates before the election.
I chalk much of his success up to the influence and agenda setting of the mainstream media. Speaking of which, are you happy with the coverage which the mainstream press has given your civil action?
Well, no. First of all, the mainstream media hasn’t covered it yet. I’m doing an interview with a journalist tomorrow morning at 10:00 who says he’ll be able to get it out into the mainstream media. Well, once it bridges that gap for the first time, then it should spread just as the recent accounts of John Edwards' infidelity did. It took more than eight months for the story to reach a newspaper or television show of note.
Yes. I was talking to a producer from one of the Fox shows, and she said that until it appears in the mainstream press, we cannot cover it. The Times-Herald, out of Norristown here, they’re airing a story here either Saturday or Sunday, and I have a feeling that they’ll do a good job on it, seeing that they’re pretty much my hometown paper.I’m encouraged by the response over the Internet. I’m discouraged by the people in the mainstream press but I think we’re going to crack it on this case. There are just so many people involved at this point … people are sending out stories all over the place …
I’ve been involved in big cases over the years, and this is the single greatest initial response I’ve ever received in any case and I think it's because it's so significant – we’re talking about a serious constitutional issue which has never been dealt with before. If we’re right, which I believe we are, Obama really should be taken to task, because he knows that he violated the law. And I hope, if we’re right, that someone brings criminal charges against him.
I think it’s an absolute disgrace. If you go back to his record when he was running for the state senate, he threw off a competitor because he didn’t meet the requirements. So I think this guy has got a lot of nerve, I really do, and I believe we’re right, and I believe that action should be taken against him. He could cause, as I said to the judge today, irreparable harm to people in this country, and if it happens, there could be all sorts of bad stuff going on.
Is there any historical precedent for this? I'm not entirely positive, but I think that George Romney--Mitt's father--was deemed constitutionally eligible to run for president in 1968 even though he was born in Mexico.
I’m not sure about that, but if you remember [Thomas] Eagleton, he was forced out because of mental treatments--shock treatments--and was replaced with Sergeant Shriver who, along with McGovern, lost. A change of this sort is always detrimental, and that’s why we believe the Republicans are aware of this, they’re waiting, and they will bring it out in September or October and, at that point, would destroy the Democratic Party. Because of the backlash and the people who will be so disgusted, it will lose the presidency, and it could lose the Senate, the House, the governor races and other races across this country. I really think that Obama owes it to everyone to produce, right now, a vault birth certificate and proof of the oath of allegiance he took upon his return to this country from Indonesia, which I don’t believe exists. If he has these documents, he owes it to everyone to bring them out right now.
I've written a lot over the past few months about race and politics, and back in February and March warned of the potential for Barack Obama and his supporters to counter substance with charges of racism and cries of racial intolerance. What do you say to those people who inevitably will, perhaps looking at the underlying African story, call you a racist?
Of course some people might look at me and assume I’m doing this because he’s black. I’m not. I’m Jewish, and I’m a life-long member of the NAACP, so people will be hard-pressed to confront me on any of those issues. Rumors as to Barack Obama's citizenship have been swirling around the Internet for months.
Why did you wait so long to file suit?
They asked me the same question when I was doing the radio interview for the San Diego station. I received a phone call about ten days ago, and someone said "you’ve got to do this." I explained that, before I went forth with it, I had to do due diligence, check all of the sources and check all of the information to find out if it was for real. And I believe it is for real.
Factcheck.org released a statement yesterday, including images showing an embossed seal and appropriate signatures, and maintained that after fondling the certificate they could attest to its authenticity. How satisfied are you with the independent forensic document experts cited in your complaint?
Well, I'm not familiar with that site [he asked me to spell it --Jeff] but I’ve seen documentation supporting our arguments just the same and I’m satisfied with that. Look, the truth comes down to this -- at this point in time, it’s time to fish or cut bait, time to stop pussy-footing around. At this point in time, Obama owes it to people to produce the documents. If I’m wrong, even if he doesn’t want to handle it himself and has the person in charge of his campaign communications come out and say, "here is the vault copy of the birth certificate, here is the certified copy of his oath of allegiance from when he came back from Indonesia, this issue should be put to bed and Mr. Berg should withdraw his suit immediately or we’ll sue him to high heaven," then I’m wrong. If they do not do that within the next day or so, then I know we’re right. If they let the case linger, then I believe we’re right. The challenge I’ve made to them is that, if they don’t produce these documents, then we know they’re wrong.
Yes, but in a constitutional issue such as this one, wouldn't you carry the burden of proof, Mr. Berg?
Yes, it is on me, but what I am saying here is that I’ve created an issue which I’m sure will be all over the convention next week, whether the reporters want to deal with it or not. It should be brought up with the delegates, someone should bring it up and confront them with it. I’d like to go to Denver, and if I have the chance to speak in front of Obama delegates, I would explain that "if I’m wrong, I’m out of here – but it is incumbent upon you to ask your candidate to confirm that he is a citizen and produce the necessary documentation, and if he doesn’t do it, then this party is going to go down the drain."
Switching gears now, the mainstream media has proven to be very protective of Barack Obama up to this point. I've even suggested that sitting on the John Edwards story in the weeks prior to the Iowa caucus was done not so much to protect Edwards, but to protect Obama from Hillary Clinton, who stood to benefit from Edwards' votes should he have dropped out early. Do you worry that you will be discredited as a result of bringing attention to the various issues, inconsistencies and unanswered questions surrounding the mainstream media's chosen candidate?
No. I’m not worried about that. I can handle myself in front of the media. If the media wants to confront me, I’ll confront them. I’ll ask them why I need to do this, why they didn’t do this months ago. With the resources at their disposal, with the access and the ability to travel, it is incumbent upon them to have properly vetted Obama, and the fact that they have not done so is a disgrace.
A couple of years ago, in 2005, you were subject to sanctions and fines for reported ethics violations. A few years before that, there were the Federal Racketeering actions filed against President Bush and others suggesting prior knowledge and a coverup of the September 11 attacks. And, of course, in the wake of the 2000 election, you called for the resignation of three Supreme Court Justices. You and I discussed, this afternoon, the effect of credibility on the authentication of rumor -- how do you transcend such issues with regard to this action?
The sanction and fines are on appeal. The RICO action was withdrawn because we wanted to put together a more detailed RICO complaint, and that’s why, when I represented Ellen Mariani she subsequently did not want to pursue the action. I got a second plaintiff named William Rodriguez, and things were moving along in the case, when he decided to withdraw for personal reasons. The case has put me into personal bankruptcy, but I plan to come back out a proceed with the case.
And yes, I asked three Supreme Court Justices to resign because of their involvement with the 2000 election. I think what they did was improper. I spent three weeks down in Florida and, on the Saturday in question, I was sent out to a county in the panhandle and discovered, personally, white-out painted on ballots. Serving as a volunteer sent to check on things, I confronted the judge for that single county—I forget the name of the county at the moment—and some people say I was lucky to have survived, and only did so because an NBC affiliate was there filming and a reporter was there taking pictures which ended up running on the front page of the paper in that area. Other people said, "you know, you were ten miles from the Alabama border, and if those news media people hadn’t been there, you might never have been heard from again."
See, I’m not afraid to come forth with issues which need to be exposed. Am I perfect? Of course not. In this case, however, I feel 99 percent that we’re right on this particular case. In terms of credibility, my very successful record in big cases shows some of that. I’m the only attorney in the country to defeat "cell phone" legislation in Hilltown Township, Bucks County, PA, meant to ban the use of hand-held cell phones while behind the wheel of a car, and did that pro bono. I have also represented PAWS—Performing Animal Welfare Society—in California, pro bono, protecting the rights of abused circus elephants, and was extremely successful in that case. My record, over the years, is such that I can stand on my own two feet in front of anyone. This is also my 27th year as a member in the Barren Hill Volunteer Fire Company/Fire Police, where I have served as lieutenant, as sergeant, and just as a member. I average over 100 calls per year.
Regardless of credibility, how do you get past the circumstantial nature of the evidence cited in your complaint -- for instance, the account of Barack Obama's mother staying in Kenya and not flying back to Hawaii until after Barack's birth, all based on a custom at the time which prevented late-stage pregnant women from boarding airplanes?
Well, that’s going to be tough, but the way around it is the grandmother—I’m not sure if she is still living—or the sister and brother who, according to reports, stated that they were at the Mombasa, Kenya hospital when Barack Obama was born. By subpoenaing records from that hospital, by subpoenaing the family members, we can obtain the evidence we need. I think that, in this type of case, the burden of proof shifts. I think that Sen. Obama owes it to his party and to the citizens of this country to show that I am wrong. If I am, if he produces the documentation, the case will go away, I’ll go away, and he can go forth and do what he can in the election. But if he ignores this topic, I believe it shows guilt on his part.
Now that Judge Surrick denied the temporary restraining order, where do you go from here?
We plan to wait until the various parties are served, and then I’ll make the appropriate motion to the court for expedited discovery. At that point, we’ll probably have a conference call with the judge to see where and when we will be proceeding, but this case, because of the nature of it and because the judge said he will make an effort to keep the case moving along, it needs an expedited track to overcome the normal time frame of six months to one year and beyond. This case cannot take that long.
This has to be brought to the forefront. That’s why, again, Sen. Obama really owes it to everyone to confront this. He should threaten me. “Berg,” he should say, “here are the documents and, if you do not withdraw the suit, I will sue you.” Right now, he has no basis to sue me. If he does have the documents, he should show them, and I’ll walk away. I’ll withdraw the case. But, again, he must show me a certified vault copy of his birth certificate and must show me a certified copy of the oath of allegiance taken between the time he was 19 to 21 at a Consulate, U.S. Embassy or the like. If those documents can be presented, again, I’m out of here. But I don’t think he can, I don’t think he will, and I think it is a total disgrace on his part.
Okay, in twenty seconds or less, why is it so important that these proceedings move forward?
[Note from Ken Adachi: You will note from the above question exactly why I have re-christened this interviewer with the surname of "Numbnuts", as this moniker serves him far better than the one currently residing on his birth certificate]
It is important for these proceedings to go forward at this time because the later it goes on, the more disheveled the Democratic Party will look. If it is proven later on, or if it is otherwise not acknowledged until after he is elected, then procedural steps will have to be taken whether the news comes before or after January 20. Either way, we’re looking at the destruction of the Democratic Party.
It is a disservice to every citizen of this country, especially those who donated hundreds of millions of dollars to his campaign. It is a disservice to the entire voting public, and indeed to the system as a whole.
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(800) 993-PHIL 
Fax (610) 834-7659
Posted by Jeff Schreiber 0 comments
Labels: 2008 Election, Barack Hussein Obama, Berg v. Obama, Constitution
[More wisdom from Mr Numbnuts]
Friday, August 22, 2008
Eligibility Goes Beyond Citizenship
by Jeff Schreiber
I don't know if the allegations found in Phillip Berg's civil action are true. I did not sever Barack Obama's umbilical cord, I do not know anyone who did, and therefore I cannot know for sure absent more than circumstantial evidence whether or not Stanley Ann Dunham opened wide and gave birth to the Illinois liberal in Kenya, in Hawaii, or elsewhere.
Perhaps we can look into the destination for mass shipments of gold, frankincense and myrrh in early August of 1961. Or perhaps we could just ask Keith Olbermann -- I'm sure he has a framed photograph of the blessed event.
What I do know is that, when the United States Constitution was penned mere steps from where Berg's lawsuit was filed yesterday afternoon, those imperfect but brilliant gentlemen who wrote the fifth clause of Article II, Section 1 established the trio of specific eligibility requirements--citizenship, age and residency--in hopes of increasing the probability that the elected officials who were to assume the presidency in years to come would be of sound mind, of good judgment, and in possession of a soul rooted in an undying love for America.
It was important to those courageous men that the future leaders of their fledgling nation understand what it means to be an American. Every clause in that document is there for a reason, each a lesson learned from fresh wounds of tyranny gone but not forgotten, and the framers made a point to require that, at the very least, a potential president must have been a citizen of the United States "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." Unfettered, undivided devotion and loyalty to America was of the utmost concern; simply put, only those who fought and bled for Her independence, or at the very least understood the meaning behind, need for and potential of this great experiment could be trusted with its charge.
Regardless of whether Barack Obama was born in a hospital in Honolulu or a hut in Kenya, the real question brought forth by Phillip Berg's civil action, to me, is not one of constitutional eligibility but rather of moral and intellectual and even ideological qualification.
Barack Obama's actions show a penchant for blaming America first and placing Her needs second. His associations show that no unimaginably awful deed goes unrewarded, that the want for friendship, appeasement and superficial detente overshadows the need for a firm grasp on reality and unapologetic employment of common sense. His aspirations make us believe that we can live our lives blameless for societal and economic ills, and that centuries-old blood feuds can be solved with a handshake and conversation over coffee and a chilled plate of arugula.
John McCain, wrong on so many issues, was 100 percent right on Wednesday when he stated that he never questioned Obama's patriotism, only his judgment. At a time when the United States faces unprecedented threats from every angle, within and without, at a time when Congressional malfeasance--or, in the case of Pelosi's House and the energy crisis, nonfeasance--could have disastrous effects for decades to come, sound judgment is of the utmost importance.
For our founding fathers, unflinching patriotism, unassailable public virtue and unflappable judgment were inherent among those who helped to establish the United States of America, whether on the battlefield in Trenton or in Congress in Philadelphia, as those who were citizens "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" knew why they were there, what America was about, and why She was so desperately needed.
Regardless of whether he was born in Kenya or in Hawaii, regardless of whether his birth certificate is his half-sister's or his own, or whether he went by the name of Barack Obama or Barry Soetoro, this self-proclaimed "Citizen of the World" has much to learn about what it truly means to be an American.
Posted by Jeff Schreiber 0 comments
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Constitution, Founding Fathers, Philadelphia
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Obama Sued in Philadelphia Federal Court on Grounds he is Constitutionally Ineligible for the Presidency
by Jeff Schreiber
A prominent Philadelphia attorney and Hillary Clinton supporter filed suit this afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission. The action seeks an injunction preventing the senator from continuing his candidacy and a court order enjoining the DNC from nominating him next week, all on grounds that Sen. Obama is constitutionally ineligible to run for and hold the office of President of the United States.
Phillip Berg, the filing attorney, is a former gubernatorial and senatorial candidate, former chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery (PA) County, former member of the Democratic State Committee, and former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania. According to Berg, he filed the suit--just days before the DNC is to hold its nominating convention in Denver--for the health of the Democratic Party.
"I filed this action at this time," Berg stated, "to avoid the obvious problems that will occur when the Republican Party raises these issues after Obama is nominated.".
Berg cited a number of unanswered questions regarding the Illinois senator's background, and in today's lawsuit maintained that Sen. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen or that, if he ever was, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. Berg also cites what he calls "dual loyalties" due to his citizenship and ties with Kenya and Indonesia.
Even if Sen. Obama can prove his U.S. citizenship, Berg stated, citing the senator's use of a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii verified as a forgery by three independent document forensic experts, the issue of "multi-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegiance to other countries" remains on the table.
In the lawsuit, Berg states that Sen. Obama was born in Kenya, and not in Hawaii as the senator maintains. Before giving birth, according to the lawsuit, Obama's mother traveled to Kenya with his father but was prevented from flying back to Hawaii because of the late stage of her pregnancy, "apparently a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight." As Sen. Obama's own paternal grandmother, half-brother and half-sister have also claimed, Berg maintains that Stanley Ann Dunham--Obama's mother--gave birth to little Barack in Kenya and subsequently flew to Hawaii to register the birth.
Berg cites inconsistent accounts of Sen. Obama's birth, including reports that he was born at two separate hospitals--Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital--in Honolulu, as well a profound lack of birthing records for Stanley Ann Dunham, though simple "registry of birth" records for Barack Obama are available in a Hawaiian public records office.
Should Sen. Obama truly have been born in Kenya, Berg writes, the laws on the books at the time of his birth hold that U.S. citizenship may only pass to a child born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent and non-citizen parent if the former was at least 19 years of age. Sen. Obama's mother was only 18 at the time. Therefore, because U.S. citizenship could not legally be passed on to him, Obama could not be registered as a "natural born" citizen and would therefore be ineligible to seek the presidency pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.
Moreover, even if Sen. Obama could have somehow been deemed "natural born," that citizenship was lost in or around 1967 when he and his mother took up residency in Indonesia, where Stanley Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen. Berg also states that he possesses copies of Sen. Obama's registration to Fransiskus Assisi School In Jakarta, Indonesia which clearly show that he was registered under the name "Barry Soetoro" and his citizenship listed as Indonesian.
The Hawaiian birth certificate, Berg says, is a forgery. In the suit, the attorney states that the birth certificate on record is a forgery, has been identified as such by three independent document forensic experts, and actually belonged to Maya Kasandra Soetoro, Sen. Obama's half-sister.
"Voters donated money, goods and services to elect a nominee and were defrauded by Sen. Obama's lies and obfuscations," Berg stated. "If the DNC officers ... had performed one ounce of due diligence we would not find ourselves in this emergency predicament, one week away from making a person the nominee who has lost their citizenship as a child and failed to even perform the basic steps of regaining citizenship as prescribed by constitutional laws."
"It is unfair to the country," he continued, "for candidates of either party to become the nominee when there is any question of the ability to serve if elected."
For more, read the accompanying commentary, Eligibility Goes Beyond Citizenship
BOMBSHELL: Barack Obama Is Not a US Citizen, Not Eligible to be US President.
Birth Certificate Found in Kenya. Citizen of Kenya and Indonesia. Hawaiian Certificate Forged, Suit Alleges.
Republicans Can Hardly Wait for Dems to Take Obama Bait
This page: http://www.waronfreedom.org/dox/BONoUsCitizen.htm
See also: Attorney Phil Berg speaks on his Federal Suit to Stop Obama, this week on Listen on Demand on World Crisis Radio with Webster Tarpley,
and the excellent, informative interview with Berg at America's Right.
On Aug. 21st attorney Philip J. Berg requested a temporary restraining order in Federal Court against the nomination of Barack Obama, citing evidence that candidate Barack Obama is not a US citizen, and "the obvious problems that will occur when the Republican Party raises these issues after Obama is nominated." See Berg's website, http://www.ObamaCrimes.com .
Berg argues that Barack Obama was born in Kenya in 1961 to an American woman, Stanley Ann Dunham, and a Kenyan man, Barack Hussein Obama Senior, as reportedly shown by a birth certificate from Mombasa Maternity Hospital and witnessed by Barack's relatives. According to the law at that time, a parent could pass US citizenship on to a child born abroad if the parent was at least 19 years old. Obama's mother was only 18.
No hospital birth certificate has been produced to prove Obama was born in Hawaii, only a certificate of birth registry after the fact, which forensics experts have denounced as a forgery. New photos of the certificate were posted on the Internet on Aug. 21st at FactCheck.org, which is a project of the Annenberg Center, a longtime sponsor of Obama. It is quite suspicious in itself that the "facts" are not being "checked" by an independent source, and that only a short-form certificate without the name of the hospital is shown. Barack's mother could have flown from Kenya to Hawaii right after the birth, then reported that she had the child at home, in order to secure her son's US citizenship. The judge needs to subpoena Hawaiian officials to provide an original hospital report of birth.
Moreover, when Obama was six years old his mother remarried and moved with her husband to his country, Indonesia. Records indicate Obama was naturalized as an Indonesian citizen. Indonesia does not allow dual nationality, so even had he been born in Hawaii, he would have lost his citizenship then.
Even if Obama is able to provide a US birth certificate, a dozen more insurmountable scandals face this unelectable candidate, which the Republicans can hardly wait to unleash on him after he is nominated.
1. When Obama recently made an issue of the number of houses the McCains own, McCain shot back with much heavier artillery: Obama's friend Rezko is a convicted felon, sitting in jail. Obama is the candidate of Chicago corruption. His other cronies Auchi and Alsammare are also convicted felons who have stolen hundreds of millions from the Iraqi Provisional authority and from the government in Illinois. This has been detailed by investigative journalist Evelyn Pringle on opednews, and by Webster Tarpley in his forthcoming book, "Barack H. Obama: the Unauthorized Biography."
2. Obama has very close links to the convicted Weathermen terrorist bombers Bill Ayres and Bernardine Dohrn. He shared board memberships with Ayres on the Woods Fund and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. This and most of the following scandals are detailed in Tarpley's "Obama – The Postmodern Coup: Making of a Manchurian Candidate," released in June.
3 Obama is very close to the racist demagogues Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Otis Moss III, Hopkins, Meeks, and Pfleger.
4 Obama has been accused in Federal Court of using crack cocaine by Larry Sinclair, along with gay sex. The Obama camp retaliated by arresting Sinclair in an enemies list operation by Beau Biden, son of veep candidate Joe Biden.
5. The mysterious deaths of black gays in and around Wright's Church: Donald Young, Nate Spencer, Larry Bland could be linked to Obama.
6. Obama's relations to Chechen Terrorism through Ilyas Achmadov.
7. His relations to CIA-controlled Palestinian factions Khalidi and Abu Nimah.
8. The mysterious deaths of key Clinton delegates and floor leaders just before the convention: Bill Gwatney and Tubbs Jones.
9. The alleged Michelle Obama Hate Whitey tape.
10. Then of course there is the problem that Obama is a very weak candidate as regards appeal across the spectrum. In the primaries Obama was not able to carry any of the big Blue states that a Democrat has to win in the electoral college for the general election.
Obama is not able to appeal to the electorate on the issues, only on his personality. His attempt to appear populist fails since he is in fact the puppet of the right-wing Chicago School and revanchist Brzezinski faction. Instead of offering what the great majority of Americans want, peace abroad and fixing the economy at home, he will deliver increased austerity. The war in Georgia shows that the post-9/11 era has now ended with a new cold war against Russia, inspired by Obama's guru Brzezinski.
As Tarpley points out, Obama has never won a real election contest; his way has always been smoothed by engineered scandals.
But this time the scandals are set to go the other way.
The Democrat National Committee has to be certified insane if they nominate Obama. There is no way he can beat "war hero" McCain with a ton of dirty laundry like this around his neck.
And even that pales beside the blamage, the loss of face for the Democrats if they nominate a candidate who is not even a US citizen, thus giving the election by default to the Republicans. That would be the final insult to what is left of the two-party system.
By the way, John McCain was born outside the US, on a US military base in the Canal Zone, but an act of Congress in the 1930's accorded citizenship to all children born to US parents in the Canal Zone. In Barack Obama's case his citizenship hinges first on whether or not he was born in the US; if he was, it then depends on whether he abandoned his naturalized Indonesian citizenship and reaffirmed allegiance to the US between age 19 and 21.
Tarpley's publisher, Progressive Press, is offering a free PDF file of Obama: The Postmodern Coup to all bloggers and book reviewers - especially before the nomination next week! Contact firstname.lastname@example.org
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.