Attorney Berg To File Obama Birth Certificate Appeal to SUPREME COURT

[samsloan]

I think the judge's ruling is correct. Otherwise, thousands of people
could file lawsuits challenging the right of John McCain for example
to run for president since McCain was not born in the United States.
There must be some reasonable limit on who can file such suits.

In addition, the case lacks merit. Even if the plaintiff could somehow
prove that Obama's Hawaii birth certificate is a forgery, the
Constitution states in Article II Section 1, "No person except a
natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time
of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office
of President".

Contrary to popular belief, this does not mean that one must be born
in the United States. Indeed, until 1789, the United States of America
did not exist, so none of the early presidents had been born in the
United States. Even having one American citizen parent is enough to
establish American citizenship, even for one who was not born in the
United States.

The Plaintiff here is obviously going directly to the US Supreme Court
in the hope that since a majority of the justices were appointed by
Right-Wing Republican Presidents, the Supreme Court will make John
McCain president, just as they made George W. Bush president in 2000.

Sam Sloan

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:45 AM, Bruce Majors <majors...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Attorney Berg To File Obama Birth Certificate Apeal to SUPREME
COURT

Judge Surrick rules citizens have no standing to file lawsuits
questioning the qualifications of presidential candidates

Berg now defending our Rights to Question the eligibility of
Federal
Candidates.

http://www.jonchristianryter.com/News_Folder/Behind.html

Obama Birth Certificate still missing

Judge Surrick Berg Obama birth certificate -
Google News
Address:http://news.google.com/news?
hl=en&tab=wn&ie=ISO-8859-1&ned=us&q=judge+surrick+berg+obama+birth
+certificate

==================================
T Lee Buyea - Editor in Chief
Fla. News Service, Miami, Fl. USA
==================================

Judge Surrick rules citizens have no standing
to file lawsuits questioning the qualifications
of presidential candidates
Attorney Philip J. Berg is appealing the arbitrary decision of
Bill
Clinton-appointed US District Court Judge R. Barclay Surrick who
ruled
that Berg did not have standing to sue Obama.
Generally important decisions that government officials want
buried
until they become "old news" are made on what is traditionally
viewed as
"newsless Friday" when reporters are paying more attention to the
weekend than what news stories might be breaking, leaving second-
string
newspapers and local TV stations to break stories that drift off
into
media limbo and never resurface for prime time viewing because the
mainstream media then considers the story to be "old news."
In announcing that he was "...totally disappointed by Judge
Surrick's decision and, for all citizens of the United States,
I am immediately appealing to the US Supreme Court. This is a
question," Berg said, "of what has standing to uphold our
Constitution.
If I don't have standing; if you don't have standing' if your
neighbor
doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual
to be
President of the United States—the Commander-in-Chief, the most
powerful person in the world—then who does?
The media initially reported that Berg was going to appeal
Surrick's decision to the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals and, if
he
lost there, to the US Supreme Court. Berg, however, has decided to
bypass the appellate court and file his appeal directly to the US
Supreme Court.
"Anyone," Berg continued, "can claim to be eligible for
Congress or
the presidency without having their legal status, age or
citizenship
questioned. According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no
right to
police the eligibility requirements under the US Constitution.
What
happened to '...government of the people, by the people, for the
people?"
In his 34-page decision, Surrick ruled that Berg lacked legal
standing to bring the case, adding that "...ordinary citizens
can't sue
to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the
constitutional requirements of the office." Surrick said that
was
the job of Congress, saying that the legislature alone possessed
the
constitutional authority to determine if a candidate meets the
constitutional requirements of the office he or she is seeking.
Surrick
added that Congress possessed the right to defer that authority to
"...citizens, voters, or party members," but it would take a new
law to
confer that authority on ordinary citizens. "Until that time," the
judge
concluded, "voters do not have standing to bring the sort of
challenge
that Plaintiff attempts to bring...Plaintiff would have us derail
the
democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions
of
people voted, and who underwent excessive vetting during what was
one of
the most hotly contested presidential primaries in living memory."
Berg files for expedited ruling on motion
for summary judgment against Obama
On Tues., Oct. 21, Pennsylvania lawyer Philip J. Berg filed two
motions
in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Berg
petitioned US District Court Judge R. Barclay Surrick for a
summary
judgment in the matter of Berg v Obama.
On Oct. 6, 2008 the Obama Campaign, joined by the Democratic
National
Committee filed a motion with Judge Surrick to delay discovery and
dismiss Berg's lawsuit which was filed with the court on Sept. 15.
Also,
in the Sept. 15 filing, was a Request for Admission, which Obama
and the
DNC acknowledged receiving when they filed their motion to dismiss
Berg's lawsuit. (Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, either
party
can file the motion [also known as a "request to admit"] in which
the
petitioner asks the opposing litigant to stipulate that certain
known
facts in evidence are true. That theoretically helps expedite a
trial
since, by affirming that certain known facts are true, the court
does
not have to address those questions during the trial or hearing
and,
instead, can concentrate on the points of law which are more
germane to
the case. When a litigant fails to respond to a Request for
Admission
within 30 days, it is construed to be an admission that the facts
under
the Request are true.
In his new filing, Berg contends that the Request for Admissions
from
Obama and the DNC was entered on Sept. 15. Both plaintiffs knew
that,
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, they had 30 days to
answer
the request. Berg told the court, "They knew the admissions were
due.
They knew they must object or answer specifically in 30 days. They
did
noting." Berg further argued that the failure by the plaintiffs to
response within the time limit was "damning."
The admissions Berg asserted on Sept. 15, and asked for a request
to
admit from both Obama and the DNC, included the following
stipulations
to Sen. Obama::
—Admit you were born in Kenya.
—Admit you are a Kenya "natural born" citizen.
—Admit your foreign birth was registered in Hawaii.
—Admit your father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., admitted paternity
of
you
—Admit your mother gave birth to you in Mombasa, Kenya.
—Admit your mother's name is Stanley Ann Dunham a/k/a Ann Dunham.
—Admit the COLB [Certificate of Live Birth] posted on the website
"FightingSmears.com" is a forgery.
—Admit you were adopted by a Foreign Citizen.
—Admit you were adopted by Lolo Soetoro, M.A., a citizen of
Indonesia.
—Admit you were not born in Hawaii.
—Admit you are a citizen of Indonesia.
—Admit you never took the "oath of Allegiance" to regain your US
Citizenship status.
—Admit you are not a "natural born" United States citizen.
—Admit your senior campaign staff is aware you are not a "natural
born" US citizen.
—Admit the United States Constitution does not allow for a Person
to
hold the office of president of the United States unless that
person is
a "natural born" United States Citizen.
—Admit you are ineligible pursuant to the United States
Constitution
to serve as President and/or Vice President of the United States.
If Summary Judgment is not granted, Berg has demanded a jury
trial. In
the federal court system, a request for a jury trial in civil
matters
over $20 is guaranteed by the 7th Amendment. Berg issued a
statement on
Oct. 21 in which he said that the failure of Obama and/or the DNC
to
refute the allegations with the timely filing of the Request for
Admissions was tantamount to an admission of guilt in the federal
court
system.

Supreme Court blocks GOP challenge of
200-660,000 voter registrations that conflict
with information in State database
Even though the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati
agreed
with the Ohio Republican Party that 200 thousand to 660 thousand
voter
registrations may not match social security numbers or motor
vehicle
registration records, and ordered Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer
Brunner to provide every county election board in Ohio with a list
of
the disputed voters before Nov. 4, the US Supreme Court, accepting
the
fairy tale myth that these were valid, good intent registrations
and not
an attempts to defraud the voters in Ohio and across the United
States,
the high court ruled in favor of Brunner on Friday, Oct. 17.
Brunner
argued through the State's lawyers that "...Federal government red
tape,
misstated technical information or glitches in [the State of Ohio]
databases should not be the basis for voters having to cast
provisional
ballots." As the chief election official of the State, the
Secretaries
of State in America's 50 States are charged with the
responsibility of
guaranteeing their citizens a fair and honest election. As such,
they
should not have had a problem providing local election boards with
a
list of those whose names, addresses, or drivers licenses do not
match
the federal or state databases.
Understand what Brunner said because it contradicts what the State
of
Ohio said when the fraudulent registrations began being flagged by
the
State's computers. When the Republican Party initially learned
that
thousands of ACORN voter registrations were being flagged, Brunner
assured them the absentee ballots of newly registered voters were
provisional, and that they would not be batched with vetted
voters,
giving the GOP a chance to challenge and check those registrations
before the votes were counted. Brunner's statement has made it
clear the
disputed ballots either have, or shortly will be, batched with
valid
absentee ballots which will make it impossible to eliminate over
200
thousand challenged votes when the registrations are confirmed to
be
fraudulent and not victims of "misstated technical information or
glitches in [State of Ohio] databases."
Democrats said doing so would have caused considerable delays on
election day. The Democrats further said the whole thing was a
ploy for
Republicans to disenfranchise minority voters in Ohio. The Supreme
Court
said their ruling in no way suggested there may not have been
fraud
committed. Their decision, they said, was based solely on a
provision in
the Help America Vote Act of 2002 that prohibits private entities—
like
the Ohio Republican Party—to bring cases related to potential
voter
registration fraud into the court. Furthermore, the court noted
that the
law mandates that the States themselves check and verify all voter
registrations, or the State can allow partisan poll workers to
challenge
those on the list.
Within hours of having their case dismissed, the Ohio GOP filed a
new
lawsuit through the Ohio Supreme Court, asking the court to issue
an
order requiring local election officials to separate any ballots
from
voters whose registration information does not match the records
in
State or federal databases. If granted by the Supreme Court, the
lawsuit
would force the county election boards not to count any absentee
ballot
dated after Jan. 1, 2008 without first checking the statewide
voter
register database to ensure there is no mismatch. If there is a
mismatch, the boards would have to determine if the person casting
the
ballot is actually an eligible voter.
The Ohio Supreme Court has given Brunner until Monday, Oct. 20 to
file
her response, and both parties to file their legal briefs by
Friday,
Oct. 24. Brunner responded to the media saying that requiring so
many
voters to cast provisional ballots would increase tensions at the
polls,
add time to the process of voting, and increase confusion at the
polls.
The Ohio GOP answered Brunner's allegation by saying: "It remains
our
belief that American citizens should be guaranteed that their
legitimate
votes are not wiped away by illegally cast ballots. What is no
longer in
question is the partisan nature of Jennifer Brunner's efforts to
minimize the level of fairness and transparency in this election."

Why is "Red State" Virginia in a flux?
The State of Virginia, the military "capital" of the United
States, has
not voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate since it cast
its
electoral votes for Lyndon B. Johnson—and a continued presence in
Vietnam—in 1964. According to the liberal media, suddenly Virginia
is
the unexpected battleground that will likely decide the Election
of
2008. In 2000, Democratic nominee Al Gore, Jr.. correctly
predicted that
the race would be decided by Florida voters. In 2004, Democratic
Presidential candidate John Kerry correctly predicted that race
would be
settled in Ohio. Earlier this month both Democratic presidential
nominee
Barack Hussein Obama and Virginia's liberal Democratic governor,
Tim
Kaine, both opined that the Election of 2008 would be decided by
Virginians. Virginia is a critical State for the far left this
year
because not only is there an extremist liberal running for
President,
former Virginia Governor Mark Warner—a liberal who supports a
date-certain withdrawal from Iraq—is vying for the US Senate seat
of
retiring Sen. John Warner, a pro-military Republican moderate.
Warner's
seat is also being sought by an equally popular former Republican
Governor Jim Gilmore, who supported the surge in Iraq. The left
absolutely needs Warner's seat and its almost a certainty that the
dead
will rise in Virginia to vote against military-minded John Sidney
McCain
in the most military state in the union.
In addition to the the White House and Warner's US Senate seat,
the left
has posted "do not resuscitate" signs over the reelection
campaigns of
4th term Republican Congressman Randy Forbes (Chesapeake); 10th
term
Republican Frank Wolfe ((Herndon); 11th term Republican Tom Davis
(Annandale)—and they would also like to administer nonsectarian
last
rites to 5th term Congressman Virgil Goode, Jr. and 6th term Bob
Goodlatte (Roanoke) even though those two are in fairly
conservative
areas.
The Washington Post noted that Obama "...is trying to end 44 years
of
Republican dominance and become the first Democrat since Lyndon B.
Johnson to carry the State. McCain's challenge," the Post article
continued, "is more immediate, as he has less than three weeks to
reverse polls that show a trend against him." Sounds logical. But
there
is an inherent flaw in the truth because it fails to factor
history into
the accounting. Virginia is a Democratic State because its roots
are
tied to the Jeffersonian Democratic Party (which isn't remotely
related
to the Marxist version of democracy we have in the Democratic
Party
today).
Virginian Democrats (at least those who invest their own sweat
equity in
their nation, their State and their community by toiling 8 to 12
hours a
day to provide for their families), are Jeffersonian Democrats not
Marxist Democrats. They don't believe, as suggested by Obama
running
mate Joe Biden that it is patriotic to let politicians drain
individual
sweat equity from the middle class to achieve the redistribution
of
their "wealth: (i.e., sweat equity) to those who think this nation
owes
them a living because their ancestors may have been slaves. Anyone
who
agrees to let the federal government act as their personal banker
and
spend their money to enrich those who feel it is the obligation of
society to provide for them because work is beneath them, or those
whose
idea of "work" is collecting a welfare check or sitting on a curb
with a
sign and a tin cup are stupid
Frankly, that political philosophy is stupid and suggesting it in
a
political campaign presupposes that the voters are blind idiots.
(And,
sadly, many of them are.) .The promise of America to its citizens
is not
economic equality. It is only that the poorest man among us has as
much
right to liberty as the richest man among us; and that freedom is
a gift
given to all men by God and not by self-serving politicians who
have
come to see themselves as gods. The promise of this nation is that
each
of us would, by law, have an equal chance to be whatever we can
be,
based not on government largess, but based on our own
intelligence, our
own business acumen, our own common sense, and the sweat of our
own
brow.
In life, some will succeed, some will fail. All this nation offers
is a
chance to try, not a guarantee you will succeed. No where in the
Constitution of the United States did the people bequeath to
government
the right to guarantee anyone financial equality by taxing one
class of
people to elevate another and to shackle them to both the feeding
trough
of the State and the voting booth which guarantees that the poor,
to
keep their entitlements, must re-elect the politicians who,
themselves
are shackled to the money barons who control their votes in
Congress.
When Obama expressed concern about the regulations governing
out-of-state voting of college students in Virginia, Obama
appealed to
Gov. Tim Kaine, to waive the rules for colleges students—
especially
those attending Norfolk State University, which is one of the
nation's
largest black universities. In the end, with ACORN people working
the
ploy, the rule was applied to those, with out-of-state ID claiming
to be
college students attending classes on colleges or universities
anywhere
in the State—without the need to prove they were full-time
students
with temporary roots tied to the Virginia community where they
were
claiming the right to vote.
Norfolk alone represented several thousand Obama votes.. In a
close
election, the votes cast by the student body of Norfolk State
University
could easily control who gets Virginia's 13 electoral votes. In
other
words, out-of-state college students who are most likely also
registered
to vote in their home States, could decide whether Virginia votes
Republican or Democrat this year and, quite possibly, which
nominee
becomes the 44th President of the United States.
Since there are almost as many colleges and universities in
Norfolk,
Virginia as there are churches, Kaine had Obama appeal directly to
the
City of Norfolk to waive the regulations for registering college
students to vote. Sadly for the people of Norfolk County and the
239
thousand residents of the City of Norfolk, the integrity of their
election has been compromised because, as the Norfolk Electoral
Board
noted in a statement it issued when the waiver was made, by
eliminating
the regulation it is impossible to determine the residency status
of any
college student in Norfolk.
At stake in Virginia is not only the Presidency, but one key US
Senate
seat and from three to five House seats. When the Washington Post
reported that Virginia could very likely become the State that
decides
the Election of 2008 was it subtlety preparing the voters for the
theft
of Virginia's 13-electoral votes by the Obama Campaign and ACORN?
Using his discretion as governor, Kaine restored voting rights to
2,633
felons, adding to the 3,000-plus felons whose voting rights were
restored by former governor and current Senate candidate Mark
Warner.
Under what could be called a voting quid pro quo, those felons
whose
voting rights were restored by Warner voted for Kaine in 2005, and
will
likely vote to place Warner in the US Senate.
Warner and Kaine only restored the voting rights of those they
could
reinstate without catching voter flack in rule-of-law Virginia.
Restoring voting rights to the hardcore Virginia felons was left
to
organizations like ACORN/Project Vote that aren't concerned about
voter
backlash. The scene that played out in the slums of Richmond,
Virginia
earlier this year was playing out in every major urban city in the
country. ACORN/Project Vote operatives, using the federal Motor
Voter
Law, combined with an even more lethal State laws that allow those
registering to vote to immediately cast an absentee ballot that
helps
them avoids scrutiny. That's why Fido, Kitty, Charles Manson and
your
15-year old son or daughter is registered to vote.
In Virginia, ACORN/Project Vote has added 306 thousand new
registered
voters to the voting roster. All of them—about 75% of whom are not
legally eligible to vote, and usually would be challenged before
they
stepped into the voting booth—will cast unchallenged absentee
ballots
for Democrats this year. In 2004, President George W. Bush won
Virginia's 13 electoral votes by a margin of 262,316 votes. (It is
important to understand that ACORN and other George Soros (who is
funding ACORN and Project Vote) and Tidewater Foundation-funded
voter
registration drives have registered over 10 million illegal
Democratic
Party voters in the United States since President Bill Clinton ran
for
reelection in 1996. those illegal voters are still voting—and they
are
still voting for the Party that gave them a voice in American
politics.
It is critically important for the American people to understand
that
these billionaires are not putting up millions of dollars because
they
want to make sure some poor slob's right to vote is not denied
because,
believe me, they couldn't care it you voted, didn't have a meal
yesterday, or dropped dead today. They are putting up millions of
dollars solely to guarantee that the people they are bribing get
elected
by controlling who votes for whom.
If everyone ACORN/Project Vote registered in Virginia this year
votes,
the Democrats will take Virginia with a margin of 43,784 votes.
Virginia
is one of the few States in which Constitution Party candidate
Chuck
Baldwin will have an impact. In 2004, Baldwin and Michael Peroutka
took
10,161 votes in Virginia. If Baldwin doubles his showing, the
Republican
numbers drop by 10 thousand, and the margin of victory for the
Democrats
becomes approximately 54 thousand votes. The Democrats—and their
allies in the liberal media—will claim the voters were hard hit by
the
economy, and showed their disdain for the Republican banking
collapse by
voting for Obama (who, together with Sen.. Chris Dodd, the
Congressional
Black Caucus and Carter-era and Clinton-era laws which forced US
banks
to loan money to minority buyers without the credit standing to
merit
the loans. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac intensified the problem by
guaranteeing millions of bad loans, as favors to politicians, that
ultimately collapsed).
But just in case there is a backlash by white voters in Virginia
against
Obama's pledge to the NAACP to expeditiously implement the
redistribution of wealth from the white middle class to the black
underclass, ACORN/Project Vote spent the last two years
registering
those not eligible to vote in every battleground State. In 2004,
Ohio
was the pivotal State that determined the election. But, had Kerry
taken
6 thousand more votes in New Mexico, 5,000 more votes in Iowa and
50
thousand more votes in Colorado, he would have been the 44th
President
of the United States. Had Al Gore, Jr. taken 41,000 more votes in
West
Virginia in 2000, Florida's 297 vote victory for Bush-43 would not
have
mattered at all because union strong West Virginia, which almost
always
votes Democratic (but which gave its 5 electoral votes to Bush in
2000),
would have flipped the election with Gore taking 271 electoral
votes and
Bush taking 266.
And finally, looking at the States where ACORN/Project Vote
investigations are currently taking place, we see why the ACORN/
Project
Vote effort concentrated on Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan,
Colorado,
Nevada, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida and
Illinois.
If Kerry had taken 117,600 more votes in Ohio in 2004, he would
have
become the 44th President of the United States. ACORN/Project Vote
knows
Ohio is within their grasp this time around with the new rules
that are
now being challenged in federal court. So is Nevada and Colorado.
They
also know, even if they fail to steal Virginia with illegally-
registered
voters, they can still win Ohio's 20 electoral votes with 117,600
ACORN/Project Vote voters; Nevada's 5 electoral votes with 21,500
ACORN/Project Vote voters; and 9 electoral votes with 96,525
ACORN/Project Vote voters. And, if the Election of 2008 shapes up
as a
clone of 2004 (which utilized a decade's worth of ACORN/Project
Vote
voters), Barack Hussein Obama will win the election with 270
electoral
votes to 267 for John Sidney McCain.
And if McCain-Palin should somehow prevail, the Democrats who
funded
ACORN/Project Vote—and the liberal media that concealed the
attempted
theft of the nation—will all start screaming at the top of their
lungs
that, once again, George W. Bush and the oil companies stole
another
election from the people.

Who caused the financial crisis? Hear former
Fannie Mae Chairman Daniel Mudd thank them...
Obama using fraudulently doctored video
to make it appear that Israel wants
Americans to vote for Barack Obama
Earlier this year the far left Jewish Council for Education &
Research
[JCER] approached several current and former senior level Israeli
generals, telling them they were producing a video documentary on
what
the next US President, whomever he is, will have to deal with in
the
Mideast. Nothing more. Only, when the video was done, it was not a
documentary on the problems the new president would face in the
Mideast,
the clips were edited into snapshot endorsements of Obama for
President
of the United States. The video is being used by the Obama
Campaign to
convince American Jews that the leadership of Israel wants them to
vote
for Kenyan, Muslim-born Barack Hussein Obama. Sixty percent of the
American Jewish population have bought the hype and believe that
Israel's leaders have actually endorsed Barack Hussein Obama for
President.
However, the video in which several current and former Israeli
generals
offer their endorsements of Obama, or claim to support Obama's
position
of direct negotiations—without preconditions—with Iranian
President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an artfully edited, spliced-together sham.
One of
those interviewed for the video was former Israeli Defense Forces
[IDF]
Uzi Dayan who angrily told Israel Today that he had been deceived
by the
JCER because the segment he video-tapped, which was several
minutes
long, had been reduced to 5 seconds of tape that made it appear
that he
supported Obama's intention of holding talks with Ahmadinejad and
the
current Iranian leadership. Dayan is, and always has been, firmly
opposed to direct, unconditional talks with Ahmadinejad.
Former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy also appears in the video. And,
like
Dayan, he appears to be saying that he also backs Obama's position
on
unconditional talks with Ahmadinejad. Halevy told Israel Today
that not
only were his words taken "...Grossly out of context," the words
of
praise he heaped on John McCain and his policies, were
conspicuously
absent from the brief video. When the filmmakers, the co-executive
directors of JCER, Mik Moore and Ali Wallach (who are also the
heads
and, it appears, 67% of the total membership, of JewsVote.org)
that was
produced by Sarah Silverman.
The video was debunked as a fraud by Jewish comedian Jackie Mason
on
Oct. 3. When the videographers asked him who he supported for
president,
Halevy replied that '...it was not the place of Israelis to advise
Americans on whom they should vote for." Both Dayan and Halevy
have
demanded that the Obama Campaign remove their segments from his
campaign
video. Several Israeli generals with more left-leaning views also
appear
in the video. They also admitted they were deceived by the
filmmakers,
and that their comments were also taken out of context. However,
they
did not demand that their "endorsements" be removed from the
video. I
guess they're watching the polling numbers and think Obama is
going to
win.
According to the Iraeli blog, Israel Matzav (written by a former
corporate lawyer from Boston who migrated to Israel in 1991),
JCER,
which has been churning out pro-Obama videos to influence the vote
of
the US Jewish community for Obama is Jewish only because of its
Jewish-sounding name. The Israeli blogger, Carl, who now lives in
Jerusalem, noted that "...the JCER are the same people who
sponsored the
Columbus Day trip to Florida (returning on the first night of the
holiday of Succot (when its forbidden to travel under Jewish
law)." Carl
said their whole purpose in being is "...to convince your
grandparents
to vote for Obama. "Despite its lofty name," Carl writes, "JCER is
not a
Jewish organization per se. It's a 527 organization started by a
couple
of rich, young leftist Jews who decided to find their Jewish
identity
through liberalism."
Ari Wallach, one of the co-founders, was the VP of Corporate
Development
for Seed Media Group, LLC. He serves on the board of directors for
ACCESS, an advocacy arm of the American Jewish Committee, formed
by
Russian socialist Jews in New York in 1906. Wallach, adopted as a
child,
was born in Guadalajara, Mexico. He was raised in the San
Francisco Bay
area by ultra-liberal artist Raul and Susan Wallach. Mik Moore,
the
other cofounder of JCER, is currently on leave from the Jewish
Funds for
Justice. He is the Chief Communications Officer of JFJ. Like
Wallach,
when the election is over, Moore will return to his regular day
job.
Both can expect invitations to Obama's coronation (i.e.,
inauguration)
if he wins.

Redirect me to "DNC joins Obama to block Berg suit"
Redirect me to "Palin Phenomenon"
Redirect me to "No Knock Warrants"
Redirect me to "Baby Boomer Armageddon"
Redirect me to "VA still using war veterans as guinea pigs"
Copyright © 2008 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved.

==================================
TLB - FNS
==================================

[samsloan]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Nicolas Leobold <nleo...@msn.com>
wrote:

--- In ManhattanL...@yahoogroups.com, "Sam Sloan"
<samhsloan@...> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Isaac Friedman
<yifriedman@...>wrote:

>
> > The Constitution says "natural born citizen or a citizen of
the
United
> > States at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution" (quoting
from
> > memory, sorry) That means either someone who was born in the
US
or -- in the
> > case of the first few presidencies when the US wasn't old
enough
for
> > candidates to be born in it -- a citizen at the time of the
Constitution's
> > adoption. So, Sam, where do you get the idea that any citizen
is
eligible?
>
>
> I don't follow you.
>
> Obama's mother was a natural born citizen of the US. This makes
Obama a
> natural born citizen too, even if, as is alleged, Obama was born
in
Kenya.
>
> Sam Sloan
>

No, if Obama was born in Kenya, he is only a statutory citizen,
not a
natural born one, even though our current government might try to
argue otherwise.

If the Founders had intended it to be different, there would have
been no need for them to add the distiguishing phrase of "or a
citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution", since that is the exception to being born inside
the
United States that they needed to qualify the early Founders, who
were foreign-born, to run for President.

Nic

Be careful.

In order to win this argument, you have to prove at least three
things:

1. Obama was not born in Hawaii and his Hawaiian birth certificate,
which is posted on the Internet, is a forgery and

2. Obama was born in Kenya and therefore is not a citizen.

3. John McCain is a citizen even though he was born in the Republic of
Panama.

Item three above is probably the reason why this entire issue is being
avoided by the Republicans.

Sam Sloan

[Figaro]

Is Berg paying for all this himself? If not, who is?

[Lubow]

Looks like the jig is up! You found out about the 47 year Manchurian Candidate
conspiracy.

About 47 years ago a baby was kidnapped from Kenya by the Weather Underground.
The Weathermen continuously trained the young Kenyan on public speaking using
Nixon's speeches as a role model. The Weathermen even paid for a birth
announcement in the Honolulu newspaper announcing the "birth" of the young
Kenyan in Honolulu. To take the conspiracy one step further, they paid off an
official at the Hawaii Health Department to create a false birth certificate.

The Weather Underground then paid the members of the Harvard Law Review to elect
the Kenyan as its editor-in-chief.

From there everything is history and the result is Barak Obama.

And if you believe that, I have bridge in Brooklyn I think you would want to
buy.

"samsloan" <samh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6bec6c90-4f1e-4cee...@q9g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

[old....@cmaaccess.com]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 07:09:49 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
<samh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> No, if Obama was born in Kenya,

If, if was a horse we all go for a ride. Obama was born in
Hawaii the 50th state in the Union.
--
I hope you like my photos at www.myspace.com/osalt
If you would like to buy one, e-mail me, prints up
to 30x20 inches.

[aclue]

On 27-Oct-2008, old....@cmaaccess.com wrote:

> If, if was a horse we all go for a ride. Obama was born in
> Hawaii the 50th state in the Union.

Why even bother? Thats all the McCain campaign has been doing all season is
throwing these stupid things out there.
Sad pathetic campaign

[aclue]

On 27-Oct-2008, Figaro <fig...@nevermind.com> wrote:

> Is Berg paying for all this himself? If not, who is?

Fess up!

[aclue]

On 27-Oct-2008, "Lubow" <lu...@lubowindustries.com> wrote:

> Looks like the jig is up! You found out about the 47 year Manchurian
> Candidate
> conspiracy.
>
> About 47 years ago a baby was kidnapped from Kenya by the Weather
> Underground.
> The Weathermen continuously trained the young Kenyan on public speaking
> using
> Nixon's speeches as a role model. The Weathermen even paid for a birth
> announcement in the Honolulu newspaper announcing the "birth" of the young
>
> Kenyan in Honolulu. To take the conspiracy one step further, they paid
> off an
> official at the Hawaii Health Department to create a false birth
> certificate.
>
> The Weather Underground then paid the members of the Harvard Law Review to
> elect
> the Kenyan as its editor-in-chief.
>
> From there everything is history and the result is Barak Obama.

Thats what I was figuring all this time.

> And if you believe that, I have bridge in Brooklyn I think you would want
> to
> buy.

Your just trying to be funny, course I know you can't sell me that bridge.

[samsloan]

I am really surprised that you are still going off on this, as though
you think you have a case.

For example, you are saying that Obama was adopted by an Indonesian at
age 15 and therefore he lost his citizenship.

That is not true and even if it was true that would still not change
the fact that he was a citizen at birth.

I have a friend who married in Japan and has four children born in
Japan. Since Japan does not give Japanese citizenship to anybody whose
father is not Japanese, my friend's children were all given American
citizenship and passports at birth. Then my friend had to apply for
Japan residence visas for his children every few years.

His youngest son, now 25, has never been to America in his life and
does not speak even one word of English. Yet, he is a "natural born
citizen" and carries a US passport.

Opponents of Obama keep proposing all kinds of legal theories under
which he should not be allowed to take office. Of course, had McCain
won they would have been silent because McCain definitely was not born
in the US. There is no doubt that McCain was born in the Republic of
Panama.

So, you are trying to prove that his Hawaii Birth Certificate was a
forgery or that he lost his citizenship by being adopted or several
other preposterous legal theories, without even addressing the ruling
of the court which was that a mere citizen lacks standing to challenge
the validity of a candidate. There is also the question of whether the
US Supreme Court even has jurisdiction to overturn a presidential
election. Since the constitution divides the government into three
branches, I doubt that the US Supreme Court even has jurisdiction to
overturn the election of a president. (Note than in 2000, the US
Supreme Court did not overturn the election. It merely stopped the
vote count at a time when Bush was 200 voted ahead. They could
probably see that when all the votes were counted Bush was going to
lose, since the uncounted votes were in heavily Black districts, but
nevertheless they did not change the vote count. They merely stopped
any more votes from being counted. Why do not opponents of Obama take
up that issue? Is it only because their man won that time?)

Sam Sloan

[samsloan]

There is no coverup. This issue about Obama's status as a "Natural
Born Citizen" was brought up many times on the network news shows
including especially Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/

The American people knew about this issue and after weighing the
arguments on both sides decided that Obama was a natural born citizen.

All we hear now is sour grapes from supporters of McCain, even though
McCain definitely was not born in the USA.

Neither they nor the courts have the right to change the decision made
by the American People.

Sam Sloan

[Allan Smith]

sam,

> Neither they nor the courts have the right to change the decision made
> by the American People.

Yep, only Congress can remove him from office now, and I think that it would
be political suicide for any member to even mention, much less make a motion
to, impeach.

Allan

--
One asks, many answer, all learn -- Plato, on the 'Forum
---
True civility is when every one gives to every other one every right
that they claim for themselves.

"samsloan" <samh...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:8bbf270e-07b7-4829...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

[samsloan]

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 11:59 AM, <Band...@aol.com> wrote:
> Respectfully. qualification for president is?not a public opinion issue. It
> is a legal issue. A constitutional issue. That's what Courts are supposed to
> do. Do you feel the same you about the issue of seating the Illinois
> Senator. Is there a role for the courts in that case??
> How about Governor Schwartzanegger's qualification for president??
> ?

Arnold Schwartznegger is clearly not qualified. There is no doubt
about that.

Those who say that Obama is not a natural born citizen are usually
saying some combination of his Hawaii birth certificate is a forgery,
the Hawaiian newspaper announcement of his birth was part of a long
range conspiracy to make him president 47 years later, or he was not
"natural born" because he was born by Caesarian section, or he is not
"natural born" because his father was a British Citizen and thefore he
had dual citizenship. It is also being said that he was not natural
born because his mother had only been a US citizen for a few years.

Finally, some are saying that he lost his citizenship because he was
adopted by an Indonesian.

All of these contentions are nonsense, in my opinion.

Sam Sloan

[Duine]

I don't know the truth of the question, but you are (for once) absolutely
correct that it is too late.

2,669 days without another terrorist attack on the United States.
Thank you President Bush! <cheering>

Duine

"Allan Smith" <gues...@guesswhere-here.com> wrote in message
news:JtKdnRaGd6BaZMHU...@giganews.com...

[Allan Smith]

cg,

It is perhaps possible the USSC could question eligibility before he is
sworn in on Jan 20, and that is probably where all the haste comes from.

But once he is sworn in, he is the President, and the Constitution is clear
about the removal process. Article One specifically gives only the House of
Representatives the power of impeachment (indictment), and only the Senate
the power of trial (conviction). Removal is automatic upon conviction.

The Judiciary has no authority in the outcome. IMO, that is rightly so,
since the Judiciary is not elected, does not directly represent the people,
and, due to lifetime appointment, is not directly accountable to the
electorate.

It seems to me the only authority to remove an elected President should come
from directly elected representatives of the people. Exercise of any other
authority would be usurpatory of the first three words of the Constitution.

"We the people..".

Allan

--
One asks, many answer, all learn -- Plato, on the 'Forum
---
True civility is when every one gives to every other one every right
that they claim for themselves.

"°cg°" <cgrams7@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1ahql49uu0rg06gg1...@4ax.com...
> Leaving aside President Elect Obama's actual citizenship status, I'm
> thinking that the U.S. Supreme Court could remove him from office if
> he is not a natural born citizen.
>
> I don't know if it would since that would be a delicate situation
> but...

>
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:13:49 -0500, "Allan Smith"
> <gues...@guesswhere-here.com> wrote:
>
>>sam,
>>
>>> Neither they nor the courts have the right to change the decision made
>>> by the American People.
>>
>>Yep, only Congress can remove him from office now, and I think that it
>>would
>>be political suicide for any member to even mention, much less make a
>>motion
>>to, impeach.
>>
>>Allan
>
> --

> °cg°
>
> "Nature is trying very hard to make us succeed, but
> nature does not depend on us. We are not the only
> experiment."
> -- R. Buckminster Fuller

[Ernie Jurick]

"°cg°" <cgrams7@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:pdpql4h7e8nltac20...@4ax.com...
> The U.S. Constitution is also very clear (even if the term "natural
> born citizen" is a little hazy) about the qualifications needing to be
> met to be the President of the U.S.A. It could very easily be aruged
> that regardless of Electoral votes cast and innagurations completed
> that a person who is not a "natural born Citizen" cannot be President
> of the U.S.A and, therefore, never was President.
>
> That is, there would be no need to remove a sitting President since
> the elected/innagurated individual was never the President to begin
> with.
>
> I think the real need for speed is to avoid having an individual
> ineligable to be President of the U.S.A. making decisions and taking
> actions reserved for that position. What a mess that would be.
>
> I don't believe there will be any difficulty establishing President
> Elect Obama's credentials to take office. It may be in the best
> interests of the nation for him to supply the needed documentation and
> do all that is within his power to see that this issue is resolved
> prior to his innaguration.
>
> After all, who needs a confrontation between the U.S. Congress, the
> U.S. President and the U.S. Supreme court on the issue? Congress
> insisting only it may remove the man from office, the court insisting
> he was never in office and the man saying they are both full of it.
>
> It may not be very likely but the consequences of finding out that
> President Elect Obama should never have been allowed to even run for
> the office after he is already in office would not wonderful.
>
> Just my 2¢.

The Supreme Court has ruled, the issue is stone cold dead, only kept on life
support by desperate right-wingers and certifiable nut cases like Mr Berg.
Obama is as American as Yankee Doodle. I suspect Mr Berg will have his
license revoked by the ABA for conduct unbecoming, before he starts
insisting that the Pope is a Klingon robot, or Cindy Crawford a transvestite
male.
-- Ernie

[Allan Smith]

> The U.S. Constitution is also very clear (even if the term "natural
> born citizen" is a little hazy) about the qualifications needing to be
> met to be the President of the U.S.A. It could very easily be aruged
> that regardless of Electoral votes cast and innagurations completed
> that a person who is not a "natural born Citizen" cannot be President
> of the U.S.A and, therefore, never was President.

A President-elect becomes President when the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court administers the Oath of Office. In doing so, the USSC "seats"
(recognizes) the individual as President. They do not have the power to
unseat him.

So, to whom would an argument such as yours be made?

> That is, there would be no need to remove a sitting President since
> the elected/innagurated individual was never the President to begin
> with.

Who has the authority to make that judgement? If it were subsequently made
by the authority that seated him, which branch would then have the authority
to act on such judgement?

> After all, who needs a confrontation between the U.S. Congress, the
> U.S. President and the U.S. Supreme court on the issue? Congress
> insisting only it may remove the man from office, the court insisting
> he was never in office and the man saying they are both full of it.

It was the SC that put him in office. They are the only branch that can
"seat" a President, and the Legislative is the only branch that can "unseat"
a President. Nothing here changes that.

Allan

[old....@cmaaccess.com]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 00:53:52 -0500, WaIIy <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote:

>I'd like to see a certified copy of the ORIGINAL birth certificate.
>
>All of the "arguments" against this are not worth a fig.
>
>Let us ask WHY a certified copy of the original is not being produced.
>
>If there's no 'there', 'there' , why not show it ?

Since no one has figured out a way to shove it up your ass for
you to see it. For the rest of us, who don't have our heads up our
asses, or ware tinfoil hats. This matter is closed to any body who
no longer drags there knuckles when they walk.

Born in the U.S.A.
August 21, 2008
Updated: November 1, 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.

Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health
confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu

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

[Allan Smith]

Wally,

Try FactCheck dot org. You can see it there.

You'll also see a birth announcement from the newspaper "Honolulu
Advertiser" printed on Sunday, August 13, 1961.

Allan

--
One asks, many answer, all learn -- Plato, on the 'Forum
---
True civility is when every one gives to every other one every right
that they claim for themselves.

"WaIIy" <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote in message
news:frarl4ho876cmfuro...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:40:48 -0800, "Ernie Jurick"
> <invalid...@example.invalid> wrote:
>

[Dave K]

On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 06:38:53 -0500, "Allan Smith"
<gues...@guesswhere-here.com> wrote:

>Wally,
>
>Try FactCheck dot org. You can see it there.
>
>You'll also see a birth announcement from the newspaper "Honolulu
>Advertiser" printed on Sunday, August 13, 1961.
>
>Allan

Do you think that'll be the end of it for Wally on the Birth
Certificate thing?

Somehow I doubt it... ;)
--

Cheers! :)

[Ernie Jurick]

"°cg°" <cgrams7@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:sguql4d0bd81jndev...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:40:48 -0800, "Ernie Jurick"
> <invalid...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>>

> More precisely, two applications for injunction of the election
> results were submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court. Both were rejected
> by a Justice. One by Justice Souter and another by Justice Kennedy.
> There remains one other request for injunction. It has been referred
> to the Court by Justice Scalia and scheduled for conference on Jan 16,
> 2009.
> http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm
>
> While I personally believe the request scheduled for conference will
> be rejected, it isn't over until the fat lady sings.

It would be over sooner if the fat lady sat on Mr Berg....
-- Ernie

[Ernie Jurick]

"Allan Smith" <gues...@guesswhere-here.com> wrote in message

news:QYSdnarFS4VaYcDU...@giganews.com...

> Wally,
>
> Try FactCheck dot org. You can see it there.
>
> You'll also see a birth announcement from the newspaper "Honolulu
> Advertiser" printed on Sunday, August 13, 1961.

It's a fake, of course, just like his birth certificate! A transparent fake
by the forces of darkness who want to put a Kenyan Muslim terrorist
socialistic communist alien expatriate illegitimate Indonesian mulatto into
the highest office in the land, where he will destroy American values,
mandate gay marriage, and appoint stem cells into the Cabinet!
-- Ernie

[Dave K]

LOL, there you go! ;)
--

No Bush was harmed in this message.

[Ernie Jurick]

"°cg°" <cgrams7@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:ap2tl454mclrfjd57...@4ax.com...

> You have apparently not gone to the site Allan referred to and OS
> posted. Until the long-form birth certificate (in Wally's terms -
> "ORIGINAL birth certificate") is viewed and confirmed by a trusted
> source Wally's concern and the doubts of other will continue. It
> should be, after all, fairly easy for the State of Hawaii to produce
> it for review.

It's been. Over and over again, to everyone's satisfaction but the lunatic
fringe.
-- Ernie

[Dave K]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 15:28:11 -0700, °cg°
<cgrams7@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>
>
>The long-form birth certificate?
>
>I'd be more than happy to take a look at the long-form birth
>certificate or a photo of it. Please tell me where I can do that. It
>certainly is not at the FactCheck cite referenced by Allan or posted
>by OS.

LOL, as Ernie said, lunatic fringe.
--

"You can't fix stupid!"
-Ron White

[Ernie Jurick]

"°cg°" <cgrams7@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:345tl4tqtp7tj8p3f...@4ax.com...

> The long-form birth certificate?
>
> I'd be more than happy to take a look at the long-form birth
> certificate or a photo of it. Please tell me where I can do that. It
> certainly is not at the FactCheck cite referenced by Allan or posted
> by OS.

As long as the hospital, the state of Hawaii, the US government and courts
accept a birth certificate as official, what difference does length make?
Will it be officialer if it's a foot long and not a measly ten inches? And
do you honestly think that if the Illuminati or whoever could forge a
perfectly acceptable short certificate they'd be incapable of forging a
longer one-- or one in Mandarin or musical notation for that matter? This is
all just a desperate ploy by people who can't accept reality. I'm sure we'll
be hearing from the lunatic fringe about it for the next 8 years. Why didn't
they kick up a fuss because John McCain was a Panamanian citizen at birth?
-- Ernie

[Ernie Jurick]

"°cg°" <cgrams7@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:hr3tl45t592ddn5i5...@4ax.com...

> The short-form birth certificate is not a fake. It was stamped so on
> June 6, 2007. There is no question in my mind about that.

Great! Welcome back to the real world. Help yourself to a t-shirt as a
souvenir of your visit to the Other Place.
http://www.clutchtees.com/wally-world-t-shirts-pr-16243.html
-- Ernie

[Ernie Jurick]

"°cg°" <cgrams7@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:o09tl4lb8ldb8c5qs...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 15:18:31 -0800, "Ernie Jurick"

> Hmmmmm.
>
> I will humor you with an answer to the last question - Because U.S.
> Senators don't need to be natural born citizens of the U.S.

As I recall, he was running for president, wasn't he? Or am I thinking of
that Palin woman? :-)
-- Ernie

[Dave K]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:36:26 -0700, °cg°
<cgrams7@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote:

>You are out of your league.

You are absolutely correct. I've never, ever, measured up to loony
level.

[old....@cmaaccess.com]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:44:33 -0500, WaIIy <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 06:38:53 -0500, "Allan Smith"
><gues...@guesswhere-here.com> wrote:
>

>>Wally,
>>
>>Try FactCheck dot org. You can see it there.
>>
>>You'll also see a birth announcement from the newspaper "Honolulu
>>Advertiser" printed on Sunday, August 13, 1961.
>>
>>Allan
>

>Allan, that is not a certified copy of the original birth certificate,
>but you already know that.

Wally you will not be satisfied until some one builds a time
machine, so you can go back in time to view the birth.

[Allan Smith]

cg,

It is the short-form. Show me your long form, if you can get it. As the
article explains clearly, states don't usually release either it or a copy
of it. I had to sign a consent for the OSI to be allowed to view it, if
deemed necessary, for a security clearance background investigation. Until
themn, I never knew such existed. A request for me to see it was denied.

However, in pusuit of this conversation, the following may be useful:

Dakota Indian tribal wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a
Dead Horse, the best strategy is to dismount. However, we often try other
strategies with dead horses, including the following;

1. Changing riders.
2. Creating a training course to increase riding ability.
3. Doing a study to see if contractors can ride it cheaper.
4. Harnessing several dead horses together for increased speed.
5. Increasing the standards to ride dead horses.
6. Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included.
7. Threatening the horse with termination.
8. Buying a stronger whip.
9. Giving the dead horse a Final Warning.
10. Appointing a committee to study the horse.
11. Arranging to visit other sites to see how they ride dead horses.
12. Revisiting the performance requirements for horses.
13. Declaring that "This is the way we always have ridden this horse."
14. Appointing an Intervention Team to reanimate the dead horse.
15. Appointing a Tiger Team to revive the dead horse.
16. Comparing the state of dead horses in today's environment.
17. Declaring that "No horse is too dead to beat."
18. Passing a resolution declaring that "This horse is not dead."
19. Reclassifying the dead horse as "living-impaired".
20. Blaming the horse's parents (or their parents).
21. Providing additional funding to increase the horse's performance.
22. Purchasing an after-market product to make dead horses run faster.
23. Saing this horse was procured with cost as an independent variable.
24. Declaring the horse is "better, faster and cheaper" dead.
25 Forming a quality circle to find profitable uses for dead horses.
26. Donating the dead horse to a recognized charity, thereby deducting its
full
un-depreciated original cost.
27. Reallocating the dead horse to the Strategic Materials Reserve, thereby
placing in in a deep underground vault, without having to actually
'bury' it.
28. Promoting the dead horse to a supervisory position.

Allan

--
One asks, many answer, all learn -- Plato, on the 'Forum
---
True civility is when every one gives to every other one every right
that they claim for themselves.

"°cg°" <cgrams7@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ap2tl454mclrfjd57...@4ax.com...

> You have apparently not gone to the site Allan referred to and OS
> posted. Until the long-form birth certificate (in Wally's terms -
> "ORIGINAL birth certificate") is viewed and confirmed by a trusted
> source Wally's concern and the doubts of other will continue. It
> should be, after all, fairly easy for the State of Hawaii to produce
> it for review.
>

> To save you the effort, from the site;
>
> "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."
>
> This is exactly the sort of non-response that fuels the fire. I'm
> surprised the ORIGINAL was not produced nor photographed for the
> FactCheck site.
>
> --
> °cg°
>
> "Nature is trying very hard to make us succeed, but
> nature does not depend on us. We are not the only
> experiment."
> -- R. Buckminster Fuller

[Allan Smith]

cg,

Show me yours, if you can.

Allan

--
One asks, many answer, all learn -- Plato, on the 'Forum
---
True civility is when every one gives to every other one every right
that they claim for themselves.

"°cg°" <cgrams7@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:345tl4tqtp7tj8p3f...@4ax.com...

> The long-form birth certificate?
>
> I'd be more than happy to take a look at the long-form birth
> certificate or a photo of it. Please tell me where I can do that. It
> certainly is not at the FactCheck cite referenced by Allan or posted
> by OS.
>

[Allan Smith]

Wally,

Hoe these suggestions help you in your continued efforts:

Allan

--
One asks, many answer, all learn -- Plato, on the 'Forum
---
True civility is when every one gives to every other one every right
that they claim for themselves.

"WaIIy" <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote in message

news:26dtl4tinhntan878...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 06:38:53 -0500, "Allan Smith"
> <gues...@guesswhere-here.com> wrote:
>

>>Wally,
>>
>>Try FactCheck dot org. You can see it there.
>>
>>You'll also see a birth announcement from the newspaper "Honolulu
>>Advertiser" printed on Sunday, August 13, 1961.
>>
>>Allan
>

[Allan Smith]

cg,

So tell me about all those birth announcements in the archived copies of the
newspaper. Did they search every copy of the paper down in every library and
change them all?

Seems to me your best bet is to try and find one without it.

Allan

--
One asks, many answer, all learn -- Plato, on the 'Forum
---
True civility is when every one gives to every other one every right
that they claim for themselves.

"°cg°" <cgrams7@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:ap2tl454mclrfjd57...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:34:42 GMT, Dave K <dav...@att.net> wrote:
>

[Allan Smith]

cg,

> As far as a newspaper report - hardly best evidence.

Then search the archival libraries and find one without it.

Try the one on Mars.

Allan

--
One asks, many answer, all learn -- Plato, on the 'Forum
---
True civility is when every one gives to every other one every right
that they claim for themselves.

"°cg°" <cgrams7@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hr3tl45t592ddn5i5...@4ax.com...

[Allan Smith]

OS,

He apparently doesn't trust his eyes, so why would he believe it if he
witnessed it?

Allan

--
One asks, many answer, all learn -- Plato, on the 'Forum
---
True civility is when every one gives to every other one every right
that they claim for themselves.

<old....@cmaaccess.com> wrote in message
news:hrftl4li8n393vlvj...@4ax.com...

[Allan Smith]

cg,

Can you for yours?

Allan

--
One asks, many answer, all learn -- Plato, on the 'Forum
---
True civility is when every one gives to every other one every right
that they claim for themselves.

"°cg°" <cgrams7@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:thhtl493c1o7pg8ab...@4ax.com...
> Are you saying Obama can't cause the release of his long-form birth
> certificate?

>
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 20:47:17 -0500, "Allan Smith"
> <gues...@guesswhere-here.com> wrote:
>
>>cg,
>>
>>Show me yours, if you can.
>>
>>Allan
>
> --

[Ernie Jurick]

"°cg°" <cgrams7@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:51ctl496ktmrfc2ji...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 15:54:22 -0800, "Ernie Jurick"

> OK, I'll say it another way. He was not elected President. But...
>
> While McCain was running for that office there was a great deal of
> news print expended on his citizenship. Not to mention at least two
> separate court filings in attempts to disqualify him from running for
> President. Had he been elected he probably would be going through
> pretty much the same sort of situation confronting Obama.
>
> I've even seen some say that President Elect Obama wouldn't have to
> deal with this issue at all if the left hadn't brought it up in
> regards to Sen. McCain first. I think there is probably a great deal
> of truth in that thought.
>
> But not having voted for either of them I can concentrate on the facts
> of the matter without making up excuses to not to investigate the
> matter and resolve it with the best evidence. That would be the
> long-form birth certificate in the case of Hawaii births.
>
> You disagree and that is OK. I'll not be making fun of your position.

It just seems like such a joke in this day and age in a country founded by
immigrants. They should drop the requirement as archaic and get on with
their lives.
-- Ernie

[Putt]

"Allan Smith" <gues...@guesswhere-here.com> wrote in

news:VNednT8qztL3XsPU...@giganews.com:

> cg,
>
> It is the short-form. Show me your long form, if you can get it. As
> the article explains clearly, states don't usually release either it
> or a copy of it. I had to sign a consent for the OSI to be allowed to
> view it, if deemed necessary, for a security clearance background
> investigation. Until themn, I never knew such existed. A request for
> me to see it was denied.
>
>
>

> Allan
>

Strange, I never had to sign a form so that they could get access to it...
And yes, it was for T.S. ++

Putt...

Long form, Yup, I have one...

Putt...

[Putt]

Dave K <dav...@att.net> wrote in
news:4v3tl4hejtkuc5ujb...@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 13:53:55 -0800, "Ernie Jurick"
> <invalid...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Allan Smith" <gues...@guesswhere-here.com> wrote in message
>>news:QYSdnarFS4VaYcDU...@giganews.com...

>>> Wally,
>>>
>>> Try FactCheck dot org. You can see it there.
>>>
>>> You'll also see a birth announcement from the newspaper "Honolulu
>>> Advertiser" printed on Sunday, August 13, 1961.
>>

>>It's a fake, of course, just like his birth certificate! A transparent
>>fake by the forces of darkness who want to put a Kenyan Muslim
>>terrorist socialistic communist alien expatriate illegitimate
>>Indonesian mulatto into the highest office in the land, where he will
>>destroy American values, mandate gay marriage, and appoint stem cells
>>into the Cabinet! -- Ernie
>>
>>

> LOL, there you go! ;)

Heh,
You guys STILL don't get it....
quit clouding the issue and just answer the question
"Why has he not produced his "Birth Certificate" NOT his "Certificate of
Birth" ??

Putt...

[Putt]

"Allan Smith" <gues...@guesswhere-here.com> wrote in

news:zrqdnbD70p4IWMPU...@giganews.com:

> OS,
>
> He apparently doesn't trust his eyes, so why would he believe it if he
> witnessed it?
>
> Allan
>

"Trust his eyes"???
Allan, that is NOT his "Birth Certificate"
It's not even a COPY of his birth certificate...

Putt...

[Allan Smith]

Putt,

Two questions:

1) When?

2) Were you birthed by an aunt in a somewhat remote farmhouse, to have the
paperwork taken-care-of months later?

In researching, I've discovered the laws were changed a couple of decades
ago.For $12, I can now get a copy of my long form. I'll probably head for
hte records office next time I'm home and get one. I'm curious, and I'd also
like to see if Nelda Causey signed it.

Allan

--
One asks, many answer, all learn -- Plato, on the 'Forum
---
True civility is when every one gives to every other one every right
that they claim for themselves.

"Putt" <arach...@hothotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B87ED1...@204.127.204.17...

[Allan Smith]

cg,

Me too. In researching, I've discovered the laws were changed a couple of
decades ago. For $12, I can now get a copy of my long form.

I'll probably head for the records office next time I'm home and get one. I
was birthed in a somewhat remote farmhouse by an aunt, and the paperwork was
done later. I'm curious, and I'd also like to see if Nelda Causey signed it.

Allan

--
One asks, many answer, all learn -- Plato, on the 'Forum
---
True civility is when every one gives to every other one every right
that they claim for themselves.

"°cg°" <cgrams7@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:cqitl4ta3o40lc2mf...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:12:10 -0700, °cg°
> <cgrams7@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 21:03:37 -0500, "Allan Smith"
>><gues...@guesswhere-here.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Can you for yours?
>>
>>I have no idea if there was even a long-form birth certificate created
>>when I was born. If there was and I was elected President of the U.S.
>>I am very certain it would be produced.
>>
>>Now, are you saying President Obama can't produce his?
>
> You got me curious so I took a look. It turned out to be easier than
> I anticipated.
>
> The answer is "Yes", complete with a raised seal and an apostille. In
> fact, I can only order the long form because I was born prior to 1949.

[Allan Smith]

Wally,

Whose question, and what is it?

The State of Hawaii has formally stated that he was born there.

Now, what question are you referring to?

Allan

--
One asks, many answer, all learn -- Plato, on the 'Forum
---
True civility is when every one gives to every other one every right
that they claim for themselves.

"WaIIy" <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote in message
news:mamtl45p14e74jbg7...@4ax.com...

[Allan Smith]

Wally,

What for? The matter is settled.

Allan

--
One asks, many answer, all learn -- Plato, on the 'Forum
---
True civility is when every one gives to every other one every right
that they claim for themselves.

"WaIIy" <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote in message

news:3n8vl4dtnm8ju9fv1...@4ax.com...
>
> Why not produce the original?
>
> Why ? Why ? Why ?

[Putt]

"Allan Smith" <gues...@guesswhere-here.com> wrote in

news:5OudnT6QrvCqwsLU...@giganews.com:

> Putt,
>
> Two questions:
>
> 1) When?
>
> 2) Were you birthed by an aunt in a somewhat remote farmhouse, to have
> the paperwork taken-care-of months later?
>
> In researching, I've discovered the laws were changed a couple of
> decades ago.For $12, I can now get a copy of my long form. I'll
> probably head for hte records office next time I'm home and get one.
> I'm curious, and I'd also like to see if Nelda Causey signed it.
>
> Allan
>

1965 for the clearance,

Hospital for the birth...

Putt...

[Dave K]

On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:03:06 -0500, "Allan Smith"
<gues...@guesswhere-here.com> wrote:

>Wally,
>

>What for? The matter is settled.
>
>Allan

It's a conspiracy, I tell ya! <g>

--

If the professor on Gilligan's Island can make a radio out
of a coconut, why can't he fix a hole in a boat?

[Ernie Jurick]

"°cg°" <cgrams7@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:gpgul4h0ff57134ca...@4ax.com...

> Funny you should bring that up. I was thinking about that as well. It
> is, IMO, a little to early in the globalization process for that to be
> possible but I believe it will happen.

The rule dates back to the fear of Tories being elected and dragging the
fledgling nation back to British dominion, or at least influence. That's no
longer a threat, so it should be dropped.
-- Ernie

[Ernie Jurick]

"Putt" <arach...@hothotmail.com> wrote in message

news:Xns9B87ED8...@204.127.204.17...

Who cares? If he can undo the damage Bush did to this country he could be a
space alien and it will be fine by me. The people keeping this dead issue
stirred up are the same ones who kept flogging the dead horses during the
campaign. Remember arch-terrorist Bill Ayers, who had the temerity to LIVE
IN THE SAME COMMUNITY as Barack Obama, therefore making Obama a fer-sure
terrorist himself?
-- Ernie

[old....@cmaaccess.com]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 11:30:17 -0700, °cg°
<cgrams7@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote:

>Can't be that old. They didn't do photocopies when you were born did
>they?

They did back in 48, since mine is also a photo copy.
--
I hope you like my photos at www.myspace.com/osalt
If you would like to buy one, e-mail me, prints up
to 30x20 inches.

[old....@cmaaccess.com]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 14:00:22 -0700, °cg°
<cgrams7@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote:

>I just checked - Looks like it couldn't have been photocopied until
>1968 at the earliest.

Check again, mine is a photo copy and we are talking 1948

[old....@cmaaccess.com]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 12:40:33 -0500, WaIIy <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote:

>Why not produce the original?
>
>Why ? Why ? Why ?

Since you can't get the original you dumb shit. No one can.
Only copies.

[Putt]

Ray <R...@yaooo.net> wrote in
news:nk90m4df8viag331t...@4ax.com:

> http://www.special-agent-jobs.com/special_agent_background_check_securi
> ty_clearance.php

Yup,
And TS had several prefix's that could be added..

Putt...

[old....@cmaaccess.com]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:43:49 -0700, °cg°
<cgrams7@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>1968 was the year Xerox introduced the first photocopier. Could it be
>that your received yours on, or after, that year?

No, had this one since I was born.

> I ask only because
>I believe Xerox was the first to introduce a photocopier and I am
>confident that did not happen until 1968.
>
>If you did receive your birth certificate prior to 1968 maybe some
>other process was used and it really isn't a photocopy? Or, maybe, it
>is actually a photo?

It could be a different process, it's not a photo, just check
it and the paper it's printed on is not photo quality. It is a copy,
so if photocopying was not around back then, what ever process they
used has held up for 60 years.

[old....@cmaaccess.com]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:58:06 -0700, °cg°
<cgrams7@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote:

>A certified (raised seal) copy of his long-form birth certificate
>would work for me.

It's at the site I posted.

>
>The article you posted indicated that the Hawaiian officials did not
>even respond to a question as to why that document was not available.
>The non-response took causes me to question what is going on.

I just recheck that site, I do NOT see anything of the sort.

[old....@cmaaccess.com]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 06:00:44 -0700, °cg°
<cgrams7@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote:

>I'm betting that it was some monk in a monastery using a quill pen.

LOL.... Nope not that either. ;)

[old....@cmaaccess.com]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 06:10:59 -0700, °cg°
<cgrams7@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>The article you posted indicated that the Hawaiian officials did not
>>>even respond to a question as to why that document was not available.
>>>The non-response took causes me to question what is going on.
>>
>> I just recheck that site, I do NOT see anything of the sort.
>

>It is in the FactCheck site you provided;

I wish you would have clarified more. What was said is the
following:

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.

Ok they did not wish to bother responding, I am sure they got
a ton of requests that they just refuse to reply to.

The long form is done by the Hospital not the state, maybe
that's why they don't have it. Plus the fact the long form (which I
have) gives out to much personal info as above points out. With ID
thief on the raise, I am sure only the person who's birth the form is
for can get it now.