MT, that’s a most engaging video on several levels. It’s particularly well done from both the audio and video perspectives, and the background is very well chosen. Even my RCA Small Wonder reminds me every time I use it that videography is well beyond my talents.
The video, in concert with the current situation relating to the campaign for the Oval Office and the media reports of a broad-scale spectrum of ‘attack ads’ piqued my curiosity. Most certainly, I’m not a lawyer of any sort, and certainly lack the research assets Mr. Berg has at his disposal, so learning for certain that say about FactSet.Org (which I couldn’t find) or Obama’s birth certificate (which I also couldn’t find on his web site) are beyond my limits.
Curiosity about citizenship requirements led to this site: http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html According to what documentations I could find on Ann Dunham, she and Obama’s father married during pregnancy, which has always counted as meaning the child was born in wedlock. That being the case, the only circumstance that gives Mr. Berg’s claim a firm basis would be an out-of-wedlock birth, in which case it really would seem that the marriage certificate involved ought to be the document under scrutiny.
On the matter of persistence of US citizenship, this site was found: http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html Restating that I am not a lawyer in any way, shape and form, reading these extracts seems to invalidate Mr. Berg’s arguments completely. Specifically, I intend to fully read Perkins v. Elg and Afroyim v. Rusk as the extracts offered from these suggest that Mr. Berg is either trying to bolster his standing with a frivolous law suit, or has no idea what he’s talking about.
On reviewing Jill Stanek, there is no doubt about her belief in the right to life cause, and she has gained her considerable respect and personal capital as a result of her outspoken views on the subject.
On another note, I did notice that Mr. Mitchell mis-used the word ‘infanticide,’ which carries with it the emotionally charged imagery of sixteenth century Britain, (or possibly The Savage Innocents), where the practice of simply disposing of babies was quite common. However, abortion and infanticide are two completely distinct entities, and attempts to meld them tend to deface the credibility of the persons doing so.
MT - all in all, the video itself is very compelling. Unfortunately, it seems for the moment (the ‘moment’ being until the cases have been read) to highlight the huge pitfall of sound-bite information and decision making. Should one accept this video without question, then it would appear that Barack Obama is absolutely the scoundrel that Mr. Berg claims. In light of very slight examination of the facts, it seems like Mr. Berg is attempting to sell a bridge.
What seems amiss here is that citations to dubious Internet sites are core arguments for a tort! Look at entries eighteen through twenty-two. I cannot believe that Internet posts of unsubstantiated origin would be the substance of such a suit. It truly flies in the face of my concept of the judicial process.
There’s also a problem (for me at least) relating to entry seventeen. While I can give you the name of the town I was born in, the date, and even roughly the time I arrived, I can’t remember the name of the hospital. At the time, no one was speaking to me really, and ‘reading’ was a few years down the road for me. I also just polled my four children, and none of them knew which hospital they were born in, though one still expressed the opinion that he wished it had never happened, and I shared that emotion to a degree.
As it turns out, the questionable birth certificate is not on the ‘official’ site, but on secondary site of the Barack campaign. Have a look, and decide for yourself.
MT, please bear in mind that prior to the opening of this thread, I had no agenda or leanings one way or the other. However, as simple exploration of that single video takes place, it seems that it is of small value where serious decisions are concerned, and certainly not worthy of you. I can only guess that you too were drawn in by the quality of the presentation itself, which gave the subject an authenticity it seems was undeserved.
On the question of dual citizenship, I honestly place more credibility in Mr Berg's statements - the reason being was if they were without merit, the court would not have agreed to hear the case. Also, Mr Obama's legal team, which I'm sure is substantial, would have just replied with a copy of the birth certificate and the case would have been dropped, simple as pie. Rather, he's going through back corner legal challenges to "dismiss" (see http://www.obamacrimes.com/ for the documents). Mr Berg states his credentials up front. Liars and those with no proof, don't practice in the courts he works in, especially the US Supreme Court. Is he right or wrong? I don't have that answer - but why is it so hard to produce a birth certificate and put the matter to rest? Seems like a simple thing to dismiss the rumors and lawsuits very easily. It's a requirement to be a natural born citizen - he should have had that ready when he registered as a candidate.
Wouldn't it be better to have the FACTS in front of us now, rather than learn later that we actually elected a person that does not have proof of citizenship and suddenly being forced to have a vice-president, that we didn't elect, running our country? Just put the rumor to rest and be done with it.
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States. 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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
I'm sure the Party would have this on file......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
and that my dear Watson is the question.......maybe they are foilinq in all the wronq places???? or....maybe ACORN did the research or info qatherinq???
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Okay, MT – you’ve driven me to research exhaustion, and done a splendid job of it. (Actually, it was entertaining, but even I like moaning and groaning on occasion.) Well, having done yet more research, I’ll stand on both sides of the ‘infanticide’ claim. Yes, that is the way Barack Obama, and five other committee members, voted in March of 2003, but the reasons are predictably not as cut and dry as RealClearPolitics.com makes them seem. A more detailed explanation, and one that’s about as detailed as it’s ever going to get, is available here:
The primary ‘fact’ here is, we don’t know why the voting split exactly along party lines because, as stated, the minutes of the committee meetings were not recorded. It may have been just as suggested in the article; that the federal neutrality clause was not considered sufficient at the state level; as when Clinton refused to sign the legislation illegalizing third trimester abortions, “because it contained no provisions addressing the health of the mother,” so it might be that Obama and the other five democrats did not want to put forth legislation they believed was incomplete to the desired result. Just as easily, it might have been a failed quid pro quo. No one outside of that committee knows why, and they haven’t spoken to the subject. In the final analysis, this is simply yet another misleading or incomplete ‘fact’ that has been presented on this board.
Unfortunately, another one of your assertions is absolutely incorrect. You state, “On the question of dual citizenship, I honestly place more credibility in Mr Berg's statements - the reason being was if they were without merit, the court would not have agreed to hear the case.” This absolutely is not how the courts work, as annually thousands of meritless cases are heard, and sometimes, meritless though they be, even win!
(any or all ‘cases’ in the above may be urban-legend – I needed some comedy relief at this point)
I mentioned this whole discussion to a friend of mine who is into debunking conspiracy theory, and he burst out laughing. Seems Phil J. Berg was the lawyer who started a suit against George Bush on behalf of a 9/11 hero, claiming a Bush administration conspiracy to cover up the fact that the Twin Towers were destroyed by controlled demolition--because they needed the war on terrorism to justify their political agenda. He sent me a copy of the Complaint (same court as this one), and I guess it didn't get rejected either. Rodriguez v. Bush, et al., Civil Action No. 04 CV 4952—was filed in the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia on Oct. 22.
The outcome of that case was that Eastern District of Pennsylvania transferred it to the Southern District of New York, which ultimately dismissed it because of Mr. Berg's neglect of his procedural responsibilities.
As to your question, “why not just produce and be done with it.” (sic), the answer is, “It would in no way be ‘done with.’”
While I was scrounging about for information, a friend of mine asked a friend of his, a practicing lawyer, that very question, and here is the reply:
“It looks like he’s taking preemptory action (a la the Bush Doctrine, that Sarah Palin never heard of) and is trying to get a quick and dirty judicial ruling that would preempt any Republican action on similar issues later. He files the lawsuit and controls the lawsuit because he is the plaintiff. Obama’s people do the defense and basically will ask the court for some species of declaratory relief; that is, to decide the case on the pleadings without any litigation. Since Berg controls the plaintiff side and Obama controls the defense, they can pretty much assure the outcome they want; the outcome being: no case, Obama wins. Now, let the Republicans bring the same case and it will be dismissed out of hand because it is, in law, res judicata; that is, already decided.
Apparently, the Obama people heard of this possible Republican strategy and they are acting immediately to make it moot.
Sounds pretty clever.”
[signature block omitted]
One question that as yet has been unasked is, “What ulterior motivations could Berg have for doing this?” One possibility of course is to broaden his image (which isn’t very good, btw). Another that seems more plausible is simply, “money.” On Berg’s own website there is a request for donations for this suit (along with the repeated use of the word ‘we’ and variations thereof).
This is very interesting because this is a ‘pro se’ case – there is no ‘we.’ Mr. Berg is both lawyer and plaintiff, which harkens up the phrase, “Any lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.”
That’s my reply – for now, MT. Thanks for the workout (I think….).
Isn't it a sad day in American History when it's people are so distrustful of their government that they will resort to 'conspiracies'? I must confess that some do attract my interest to the point of almost belief. Or at least it becomes 'under consideration'. Conspiracies evolve and exist due to lack of trust and belief in a system. In this case our governmental system.
Weather we agree or disagree with conspiracy theories, we must be reminded of the corruptness of government with almost a deliberate disregard for it's citizen. I find it quite amusing that our government did not take into consideration that the 'majority' of the people did NOT want the bail out. Our government didn't listen to the majority. And yet when the subject of abortion or same sex marriage is on the table for discussion.....they want to hear from the people. And these discussions go on for weeks, months and even years. The $700B + bail out took 1 week! Go figure!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
conspiracy----NO------'common enemy' to move the masses(short lived as it is)----A DEFINITE YES------as for the party arquement---who the hell are they kiddinq.......these folks didn't qo to colleqe for nothinq.........
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Here's the real October surprise. ACORN's Obama answered a question without a teleprompter, to Joe The Plumber. Obama honestly stated he was for income redistribution. Joe the Plumber has flushed the Obama candidacy. Add this to gasbag Biden's statement about paying high taxes being patriotic. Unvarnished socialism.
Okay Mr.Obama and Mr.Biden....the fall of Rome started when they opened the storehouses of the empire and 'fed the sheeple' to get votes.....after that there no longer existed a spirit of the nation.....I mean really,,,why bother to make an effort if someone will always show up to feed us that 'high fructose corn syrup crap' that they (the dems and reps all have 'investments' in, ya know thin out the 'real stuff' to spread it around to the masses, but dont let them know it's just filler)......or how about this......ya'll want to go out on that limb.....give me your years salary and hope I vote for you.....
dont suck the pioneering spirit of America from the nation......you WILL be sorry.......
DONT TREAD ON ME...........
There's no October surprise here.....just the end of an era........shame shame shame sham sham sham..........................
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Logged
Here's the real October surprise. ACORN's Obama answered a question without a teleprompter, to Joe The Plumber. Obama honestly stated he was for income redistribution. Joe the Plumber has flushed the Obama candidacy. Add this to gasbag Biden's statement about paying high taxes being patriotic. Unvarnished socialism. 
