God, the architect Mies van der Rohe is supposed to have said, is in the details. If some of his critics are correct, one detail that Barack Obama seems to have neglected is to prove that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States. Is this important? You betcha. According to Article II, Section on of the Constitution, there are 3 requirements to be president:
1) A candidate must be at least 35 years old;
2) He (or she) must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years;
3) He (or she) must be a natural-born citizen of the United States (or have been a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, a qualification that even John McCain, venerable though he is, fails to meet).
On August 21, 2008, a Philadelphia lawyer named Philip J. Berg, a lifelong Democrat, filed a lawsuit against Obama, claiming that he was ineligible for the Presidency because he was not a natural-born citizen and demanding that he produce birth documents that prove otherwise. Apparently, Obama has yet to respond.
Team Obama runs a pretty slick machine. I can hardly believe that they would overlook a technical detail that would fatally derail Obama’s candidacy. Why, then, are they not forthcoming with the requisite documents? This video, in which Mr. Berg lays out the case against Obama, will surely be a spur to action. Everyone eligible to vote should watch the video: I have no independent verification of its claims. But a lot rests on the answers to the charges it brings. I report. You decide!
Update: The AP says it’s all hooey. Maybe so. They also note that there is a lawsuit–that would be Mr. Berg’s–is pending.
I can’t evaluate the merits of the lawsuit, but to my mind, there are a million reasons not to vote for Obama that have nothing to do with his legal eligibility.
It hardly matters anyway; facts are of so little value to the media that if there were a video of Obama using a burning American flag to light up a spoonful of heroin to inject into his kid’s arm, it wouldn’t attract the attention of the New York Times.
Meanwhile, McCain acts like he’s not interested in actually becoming president, refusing to point out what the media obstintately fails to acknowledge.
Good Lord, what will become of this great country?
Scott
Oh Lord, if Colin Powell can’t run, why — WHY? — should O’Blamma?
My guess is that Obama and his camp are happy to let this be a distraction or red herring. Chasing the elusive birth certificate down the rabbit hole is preferable to having people ask hard questions about Ayers and Dorhn, Wright and Pfleger, Rezko, Raines, and all the other assorted flotsam in Obama’s closet.
Obama’s history is a little muddy, his parents are both deceased, his family seems to be unreliable also, and he does not have a history of being easy to understand when he explains something. Mainly because he takes multiple liberties with the press to come up with an answer people will buy. Sometimes I think he and Michelle have a good laugh at night at how gullible they all are.
I don’t think I know anyone that has had trouble with the request of showing a birth certificate when asked for legal requirements. I live in Michigan and we have been told that after 9/11, when traveling through Canada to New York, for example, you better have a copy of your birth certificate or passport with you. I haven’t heard anyone I know protest.
I think he is being pretty silly and see no reason it had to become a lawsuit. The Obama campaign and his supporters seem to believe that whatever he states is the truth contrary to the fact he has altered some of his positions on a variety of topics including his personal history (Ayers, acorn, etc.) over the last year. Obama’s version of the truth is a moving target.
Funny, w/ all of Obama’s dubious baggage, he is still albe to get security clearance to be our Commander-in-Chief…where’s the FBI’s background check on this guy. Even a new colege grad is often asked by a potential employer for his college transcript & birth certificate (these days employers, who don’t verify an employee’s nationality, get penalized for hiring illegal aliens.) Aside from his hidden documentation, every character reference is either a chicago politico or a anti-American socialist/marxist…never mind all the pro-Islamist Odinga/Khalidi?Said type of associations. Guess when it comes to being hired for President of the United States we can define security downward.
Judith, the President doesn’t need a security clearance. Do you really think William Jefferson Clinton could have gotten a Top Secret clearance?
It just comes with the job.
1.The document Obama put on the DNC website
IS NOT a Birth Certificate. Its a Certificate
of Live Birth.
2. A Birth Certificate states when the birth
took place, where, the parents addresses,
the attending physician.
3. The document Obama provides only states that a infant is alive and present.
It does NOT state where the birth took place.
4. According to the Constitution only a natural born citizen..not a “naturalized” citzen can be President.
5. WHERE IS THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE? WHAT IS OBAMA HIDING?
Citizenship thru Birth vs Citizenship thru Naturalization
——————————————
In as few words as possible on a tricky subject: You “acquire” US citizenship if:
1. You were born on US soil to ANY parent, citizen or not (except foreign diplomats).
2. You were born abroad to parents (or one parent) who were/was a US citizen at the time of your birth. This is where most people get confused. If you fall into this category you are considered on an equal footing is if you were born on US soil. That is, you are not acquiring citizenship thru “naturalization”.
3. You were originally foreign born and a citizen of another country BUT you emigrated to the US, acquired a Green Card and later took the steps to become a US citizen (THIS IS NATURALIZATION).
Since Obama was born in Hawaii (or even if he wasn’t), his mother was a US citizen and thus Obama was a citizen AT BIRTH thru his mother. There was no “naturalization” involved at all. Therefore, there is no question at all this he is eligible to run for the presidency.
This is just a summary, of course. There are various other requirements, exceptions and interpretations, but in general the above is true.
For a clear and thankfully brief explanation of this issue, check out:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd342.htm
Note Also:
“The requirements for citizenship and the very definition thereof have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788.
Congress first recognized the citizenship of children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”
Wow…messin w/ the messiah…glad I’m not you guys…change your logons soonest. Cheers, Alfred Dreyfus
Nonsense. I’ve looked at Mr. Berg’s lawsuit, it’s at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2066207/posts It’s not a real lawsuit pleading (any lawyer can confirm just from looking at it). This ‘lawsuit’ is just desperation drool and shows that the wheels are coming off the McCain campaign as it puts out this type of thing. Expect more from the cult that checks their brains at the door and drinks the Kool-Aid.
Why isn’t Obama forthcoming with the actual birth certificate, signed by the delivering physician? That should lay any doubts to rest.
Assume that Obama’s mother returned to Hawaii with baby Barry, and wanted to register his birth and obtain a US birth certificate. Wouldn’t she just show up at a local hospital or at the state records office? Way back in 1961, was it possible for a mother to show up with her infant and persuade hospital officials or state records clerks to issue a certificate of live birth? Tell them the two week old infant was born at home, with no physican attending?