Posted on 10/03/2008 8:51:01 AM PDT by bonnieblue4me
Update on latest information from Berg v. Obama regarding eligibility for POTUS.
Welcome to FreeRepublic.
But the AP photo of the school record from Jakarta clearly says he was born in Honolulu.
What proof do you have of this?
T'anks! :)
What proof do you have of this?
***Plenty. Google through Free Republic on the topic of state department for starters. Welcome to Free Republic.
But the AP photo of the school record from Jakarta clearly says he was born in Honolulu.
***Then it would be very simple for Obama to produce this birth certificate that he claimed in his autobiography that he “held in his hands”. The Berg vs. Obama suit would just fly away, that easily. Instead, he’s using legal shenanigans and delay tactics. Why is that? What proof do YOU offer?
An AP photo of a copy of a document is not evidence that would hold up in court.
This is the same type of scenario that ended Dan Rather's career. Just because the main stream media says it's true, does not make it true.
In fact, it makes us even more dubious.
Possible that he is illegitimate? Well, his father was already married to someone in Africa when Barry was born. That would make his father a bigamist and Barry illegitimate.
Did you know that B. Hussein Obama is not only a Chicago street thug and a Muslim, he’s also a crack-smoking homosexual?
You’re right. I don’t particularly care whether he was illegitimate or not, it’s not his fault after all; but they just have to admit it—his father was already married and thus could not be legally wed to Stanley Ann.
And yet Berg uses it as evidence in his suit. He mentions it not only in his original filing, he restates it and offers it up as Exhibit 4 in his response to Obama's and the DNC's motion to dismiss.
In fact, it's perhaps the most concrete piece of evidence Berg has presented. So if it wouldn't stand up in a court of law, then what chance is there for Berg's case?
No, it wouldn't fly away that easily. Please read Berg's suit. He argues that Obama is an Indonesian citizen by way of his stepfather, Soetoro.
That means it doesn't matter whether or not he was born in Hawaii.
That also means that even if he were to simply produce the birth certificate he claims to have in his autobiography, Berg v. Obama would not just fly away that easily. Because that birth certificate has nothing to do with Berg's claim that Obama is an Indonesian citizen.
Again, read Berg's suit.
Berg has stated publically that if Obama produces the birth certificate, he’ll drop the suit.
Here you go, loud mouthed newbie. Here’s where you can start to come up to speed on Obama’s birth certificate controversy.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/certifigate/index?tab=articles
It is evidence that 0bama has produced an unacceptable form of identification, and has not produced the origiunal, which is required by law.
Unless the required original, authentic document is produced by 0bama, how can the court rule in favor of 0bama?
You and I are required as much. 0bama must be held to the same standards.
No. But what has any of that to do with Berg's lawsuit?
Berg's lawsuit is about Obama's being able to hold the office of President as per Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States.
Did you draw the short straw?
If that's what Berg has said, then he's effectively saying that he doesn't really care whether or not Obama is eligible to hold the office of President as per Article II.
Because as I said, Berg's suit claims that Obama isn't eligible under Article II because he has (or at the very least had) Indonesian citizenship by way of his stepfather. And that this Indonesian citizenship has no bearing on whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya, making the issue of his birth certificate moot.
So how do you square Berg's claim that he would drop the suit if Obama simply produced a Hawaiin birth certificate with his claim that Obama is or was an Indonesian citizen which has nothing to do with his birth certificate?
Uh, I think that's exactly Berg's point.
How is it evidence that Obama has produced an unacceptable form of identification?
Obama says he was born in Honolulu.
He produced what he claims is a certificate issued by the State of Hawaii showing that he was born in Honolulu.
The AP photo of the Jakarta school record shows that he was born in Honolulu.
So I fail to see how the AP photo is evidence that Obama produced an unacceptable form of identification. The information in the AP photo is consistent with Obama's claim that he was born in Honolulu.
I don’t have to square it, Berg does. And Obama could, all he’d need to do is produce the BC and make this go away.
So answer my question: Why doesn’t he? And what PROOF do you offer, newbie?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.